South Carolina General Assembly
110th Session, 1993-1994
Journal of the House of Representatives

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1993

Tuesday, May 18, 1993
(Statewide Session)

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 12:00 Noon.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

We pray, Lord, to make us strong when trials and testings come. Sometimes it seem that when we have gotten our heads above the water, something else hits again. At times like these, give us a double measure of Your sustaining power for it is easy to tell then whether we are clay or gold by the way we respond: if we are clay, we become hard; if we are gold, we melt and adjust to the situation at hand. So in difficult times, be for us a strong center of certainty to sustain us, Father God, in our times of frailty and failure.

Give us confidence to say with the Psalmist: "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations." (Psalm 33:11) Amen.

Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

TO:             The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM:     Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee
DATE:         May 18, 1993

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

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Rep. M.O. Alexander
/s/Rep. Donald W. Beatty
/s/Rep. C. Lenoir Sturkie

The Screening Process

Pursuant to Act No. 119 of 1975, this Committee has considered the qualifications of candidates seeking election to the positions of Chief Judge, Seat No. 5 of the S.C. Court of Appeals; Associate Judge, Seats No. 1 and 2 of the S.C. Court of Appeals; and Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat No. 1. In addition, the Committee was called upon to screen for continued service as retired judges The Honorable Walter J. Bristow, Jr., The Honorable Luke N. Brown, Jr., The Honorable Frank Eppes, The Honorable William J. McLeod, and The Honorable Willie T. Smith.

The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Bench, the Committee conducts a thorough investigation of the candidate. The Committee's investigation includes a review of the candidate's scholastic, employment, and financial history and, in particular, focuses on the candidate's adherence to a strong code of ethical behavior, be it to the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the attorneys practicing in South Carolina, the Code of Judicial Conduct regulating the activities of all judges in South Carolina, or the more generally accepted, but unwritten, rules of fairness and respect which should govern interaction between all of this state's citizens.

While Act 119 restricts this Committee to making findings of qualification or non-qualification, the Committee views its role to also include the obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which, if they are elected, they will serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, this Committee has inquired as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and has sought to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public it represents as to matters of judicial temperament, concern for an informed Bench, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition on ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. The Committee has also sought to impart its view that good temperament is an essential quality of a judge. Justice can surely prevail when a judge is courteous to litigants and lawyers alike.

The Committee's questioning of candidates was in-depth. Many of the candidates screened in this round were unaware of certain requirements of the "Ethics, Government Accountability, and Campaign Reform Act of 1991" and the Code of Judicial Conduct. To the extent that the 1991 ethics legislation is voluminous and of recent origin and the Committee's line of questioning somewhat of a departure from past screenings, these candidates may be excused for lack of technical compliance. However, this Committee puts on notice all future candidates that this Committee takes its obligations seriously and will not excuse future candidates for such oversight and noncompliance. Also, the Committee reiterates its displeasure with those candidates who strain the no pledging rule so as to come to the Committee with a "lock," albeit an informal one, on a judgeship. In the future, the Committee will weigh heavily such activity in determining compliance with the 1991 ethics legislation and, hence, the qualification of a candidate.

Constitutional Significance of Screening and the
Committee's Review of Candidates for the Judiciary

By statutory mandate, each elementary school student in South Carolina is taught that the essence of federal and state government is the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances designed to ensure that the separation of powers is maintained and that any usurpation of power from one branch of government to another is checked. Within this system, the judiciary is granted extraordinary and final authority to determine questions of law not only for the government, but for each citizen of South Carolina. Since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), the preeminence of the judicial system's authority in such matters has remained unquestioned. Consequently and in our system of government, the people, from whom all power ultimately flows under our Constitution, must zealously guard their absolute right to select members of the judiciary who will do the peoples' work and not the work envisioned by special interests.

In South Carolina, citizens have empowered the General Assembly as their constitutional agent in the selection of judges. While such grant by the people is an absolute one, it does not come without a few strings attached. The State Constitution mandates that the election of our Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and circuit courts be by a public vote in a joint assembly of the General Assembly and that, in contested elections, each member record his or her vote. See S.C. Constitution Article V, Sections 3, 8 and 13. While procedures for the election of family court judges are not explicitly set out in the Constitution, the General Assembly has by statute and tradition adhered to an identical standard of openness. See S.C. Constitution Article V, Section 12; S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-7-1370. The Constitution's requirement of openness allows a legislator's constituents to voice their disapproval if a legislator abuses their trust in the election of judges. Disapproval by the public can take many forms--including defeat at the ballot box. Thus, ultimately the people elect the judges of this state and the people of South Carolina have selected well. South Carolina's judiciary is well-respected and has represented and fulfilled its Constitutional role in the manner envisioned by our founding fathers and, as would be recognized by even the youngest student of civics in our state's classrooms, in keeping with the ideal of separation of power.

Within the current screening process, this Committee has been asked by a respected group of professionals, the South Carolina Bar Association, to allow their input into the screening of judicial candidates. While the Bar Association's offer to provide input was of an oft-changing character, the Bar Association never offered to provide the input on the terms and conditions as are mandated by South Carolina law: (1) in the form of an affidavit, (2) forty-eight hours in advance of the hearing, and (3) subject to examination by the Committee or cross-examination by a candidate through the Committee. See S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-30. In the interest of accommodating the Bar Association, this Committee sought to stretch interpretation of the statute to its ultimate limits, perhaps in derogation of the responsibility the Committee owed this state's citizenry. Finally and when the Bar Association, which, while respected, is nonetheless a special interest group and a registered lobbyist's principal, refused to honor even the most elementary of this Committee's request to make their comments public, this Committee was given no choice but to: (1) uphold the law, (2) protect the interests of the public in the public election of judges, and (3) ensure the fundamental right of candidates to publicly question someone who accuses them of wrongdoing or lack of qualification.

This Committee's action in summarily receiving the Bar Association's ratings and not treating it as testimony before the Committee does not mean that we have overlooked questions raised by the Bar Association about any candidate. In fact, this Committee took the extraordinary step of subpoenaing as witnesses those persons who had been listed by candidates as references and who acknowledged having been interviewed by the Bar Association in its rating process. Of great concern to the Committee was the lack of any correlation between these witnesses' public testimony and the Bar Association's summary characterization of their private comments. While such disparate commentary may be attributable to either a change in testimony due to the public forum, the result of the aggregation of these witnesses' testimony with the testimony of undisclosed Bar Association interviewees, or the effect of biased and, yet, unidentifiable interviewer or aggregator, the result is nonetheless unsatisfactory. In sum, the current Bar Association rating process is not public, not subject to verification, and inappropriate for integration in the South Carolina citizens' constitutional and statutory screening and election process.

However, this Committee does not intend to leave itself at an impasse with the Bar Association or any other association which wishes to offer invaluable assistance in this important process. The Committee, by this report, has authorized its chairman, vice-chairman, and counsel to work with representatives of the Bar Association and other organizations so as to avoid repetition of the failures of this current round of screening and to develop a cooperative effort in compliance with the spirit of this report.

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING OF
APRIL 22, 1993

SENATOR MCCONNELL: GOOD MORNING. I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT THIS TIME. THE SCREENING COMMITTEE IS CREATED PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975 REQUIRING THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CANDIDATES, BUT, RATHER, TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR POSITIONS ON THE BENCH ARE IN OUR JUDGEMENT QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITIONS. THE INQUIRY WHICH WE UNDERTAKE IS A THOROUGH ONE. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EVERY CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INCLUDING COURTROOM RECORDS. A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS IS REQUIRED. WE RECEIVE A CREDIT REPORT. WE RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING, AND FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES. THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS THE PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH, AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCREENING FIVE RETIRED JUDGES, CANDIDATES FOR SEATS #2 AND #5 ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS, AND CANDIDATES FOR JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1.

THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT ARE HERE THIS MORNING: MYSELF, I'M GLENN MCCONNELL FROM CHARLESTON; SENATOR TOM MOORE FROM THE VALLEY, OR AIKEN, THAT REGION OF THE STATE; REPRESENTATIVE JIM HODGES FROM LANCASTER COUNTY; AND REPRESENTATIVE M.O. ALEXANDER FROM SIMPSONVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA. ALSO SERVING ON THE COMMITTEE IS MR. MIKE COUICK, WHO IS OUR LEGAL COUNSEL; NANCY GOODMAN, WHO IS THE LAW CLERK FOR THE COMMITTEE; AND MRS. BARBARA SATTERWHITE, WHO IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.

WITH THAT, I AM ADVISED THAT THERE ARE SOME HOUSEKEEPING CHORES THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF AND TO CONSULT WITH THE STAFF BEFORE WE PROCEED FORWARD; SO, I HEAR A MOTION THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ACROSS THE HALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAKING THAT UP REAL QUICK.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: SO MOVED.
SENATOR MOORE: SECOND.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IT'S NOW BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. THERE BEING NO DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

(AYE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: OPPOSED SAY NAY.

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. IT'S EASIER FOR US TO MOVE THAN FOR YOU ALL.

(EXECUTIVE SESSION.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: WE CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER, AND WE HAVE FINISHED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION; SO, AT THIS POINT WE MOVE INTO THE SCREENING, AND OUR FIRST ONE WOULD BE JUDGE WATER J. BRISTOW.
JUDGE BRISTOW: DO YOU WANT ME TO SIT IN ANY PARTICULAR PLACE, OR STAND, OR?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: JUDGE, IF YOU'D JUST, FIRST OF ALL, THAT CHAIR RIGHT THERE IS FINE, AND I NEED YOU TO RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THE HONORABLE WALTER J. BRISTOW, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     I SEE WHERE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS ON OCTOBER 16, 1990. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR IS THERE ANY NEED FOR ANY CLARIFICATION, OR?
A     THERE WERE A COUPLE OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN IT, BUT NOTHING OF ANY IMPORTANCE.
Q     ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     I HAVE NONE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IF YOU WOULD DO SO IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Walter J. Bristow, Jr.
Home Address:                                         Business Address:
203 South Waccamaw Avenue         P. O. Box 1147
Columbia, SC 29205                             Columbia, SC 29202

2.     He was born in Columbia, South Carolina, on October 14, 1924. He is presently 68 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Katherine Stewart Mullins on September 12, 1952. He has two children: Katherine Mullins Bristow, deceased, and Walter J., III, age 35 (medical doctor, gastroenterologist).

5.     Military Service: June 19, 1943 - February 4, 1946; Army; S/Sgt.; SN 13187051; Honorable Discharge - February 4, 1946. Present Status: Brigadier General (Retired), South Carolina Army National Guard

6.     He attended Virginia Military Institute, September, 1941 - June, 1943, left when called to active duty, United States Army; University of North Carolina, 1946 - September, 1947, A.B.; University of South Carolina Law School, September, 1947 - September, 1949, LL.B., cum laude; and Harvard Law School, September, 1949 - June, 1950, LL.M.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended most of the judicial legal education seminars presented within the last five years. However, he has missed some during the last two years.

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
Faculty Adviser, National Judicial College, October, 1981

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1950-1953         Sole Practitioner - general practice
1953-1964         Partner - Marchant & Bristow - general practice
1956                     Attorney, Legislative Counsel of South Carolina
1956-1957         Special Counsel, United States Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections
1964-1976         Partner - Marchant, Bristow & Bates - general practice
1976                     Elected Circuit Judge
1982                     Re-elected Circuit Judge
1988                     Retired Circuit Judge

20.     Judicial Office:
July 22, 1976     Elected Resident Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit
1982                         Re-elected Resident Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit
July 1, 1986         Retired
Courts of general civil and criminal jurisdiction except for matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of magistrates and family courts.

21.     Five (5) of the Most Significant Orders or Opinions You Have Written:
(a)     Nancy Stevenson v. James B. Ellisor, et al., 77-CP-40-2214, reviewed and affirmed 270 S.C. 560, 243 S.E.2d 445 (1978).
(b)     Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company v. John W. Lindsay, etc., 78-CP-40-1588, reviewed and affirmed 279 S.C. 355, 306 S.E.2d 860 (1983).
(c)     State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Rogers T. Smith, etc., 82-CP-40-426, reviewed and affirmed 281 S.C. 209, 314 S.E.2d 333 (1984).
(d)     Otis C. Carter v. S. C. Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 279 S.C. 332, 306 S.E.2d 614 (1983), order adopted by the Supreme Court.
(e)     Lester Hite v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 288 S.C. 616, 344 S.E.2d 173 (1986), order adopted by the Court of Appeals.

22.     Public Office:
South Carolina House of Representatives; elected November, 1956; served 1956-1958
South Carolina Senate; elected November, 1958; served 1958-1976

24.     Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law: United States Army, 1943-1946

31.     Sued:
Partition of real estate of which he was part owner. Case entitled Jackson v. Jackson, et al., preserved in the office of the Clerk of Court for Richland County in Judgment Roll #117439. Ended by order for partition March 21, 1979.
Three (3) condemnation actions, one (1) by the City of Columbia and two (2) by the County of Richland, to take for public use certain property of which he was part owner. Preserved in judgment rolls in the office of the Clerk of Court for Richland County.
Apparently he was named as a defendant in a civil suit in Federal Court, 3:CV-84-0583 alleging a violation of civil rights. The action was dismissed order of Judge G. R. Anderson on April 16, 1984. He was never served with a summons in the action and was not even aware of it until judicial screening in 1990.

32.     Disciplined:
He was subject of a complaint to the Commission on Judicial Standards for remarks made at sentencing in a case before him in September, 1978. The Commission advised in January, 1979, that disciplinary proceedings were not warranted.
He was the subject of a complaint to the Judicial Standards Commission on November 26, 1992, about his decision in a Charleston County case. The Commission advised on January 14, 1993, that the matter was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
There are no others to his knowledge.

33.     His health is good. His last physical was October 22, 1992, by Dr. Robert A. Frederick, #1 Medical Park Road, Columbia, South Carolina 29203.

35.     He suffers from myopia, 20/400 which is corrected to 20/20 vision.

36.     He is currently under treatment for high blood pressure by Dr. Robert A. Frederick, #1 Medical Park Road, Columbia, South Carolina 29203.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Richland County Bar Association (Secretary-Treasurer, 1952-1957)

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
First Presbyterian Church, Deacon; American Legion; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Military Order of the World Wars (Post Commander, 1959); Regular Veterans Association (National Judge Advocate, 1988 to date); Executive Sertoma Club; American Hellenic Educational and Progressive Association; Judge Advocate General School Alumni Association; First Lake Country Club; The Palmetto Club; Capitol City Club; The Cotillion Club; The Columbia Ball; The Flameno Club; The Tarantella Club (President, 1958); The Caprician Club; U.S.C. Alumni Association; and Harvard Law School Alumni Association

50.     He was National President, Conference of Insurance Legislators, 1974-1975; graduated, National College of State Judiciary, July 8, 1977; and graduated with honors from the U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, June 30, 1972.

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Cosmo V. Walker, Vice President
Standard Federal Savings Bank
1339 Main Street, P. O. Box 2826, Columbia, SC 29202-2826
(b)     John W. Cullum
University of South Carolina System
Federal Credit Union
P. O. Box 12309, Columbia, SC 29211
(c)     Roy A. Little, SRA
Roy A. Little & Company
1623 Pickens Street, Columbia, SC 29201

(d)     O. Jack Kaneft, Jr.
353 Pine Cliff Court, Columbia, SC 29209
(e)     Earl W. Stradtman, President
Metal Distributors, Inc.
1520 Atlas Road, P. O. Box 9191, Columbia, SC 29290-0191

SENATOR MCCONNELL: LOOKING DOWN, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. JUDICIAL STANDARDS HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE RECORDS OF APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. SLED AND THE F.B.I. REPORTS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE, AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU. I THINK THERE IS ONE CIVIL SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST A NUMBER OF SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC OFFICIALS ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; AND THAT SUIT WAS DISMISSED IN 1984. THE REPORT ON YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE COMPLAINT THAT WAS RECEIVED AND A WITNESS IS PRESENT TO TESTIFY. I WOULD ASK MR. COUICK, OUR COUNSEL, IF HE WOULD TAKE OVER FROM HERE AND PROCEED WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

GOOD MORNING, JUDGE BRISTOW, I'M MICHAEL COUICK. IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT I SAY, PLEASE, ASK ME TO REPEAT IT.
A     I CAN HEAR YOU.
Q     IF YOU NEED ANY DOCUMENTS THAT I REFER TO, WE HAVE EXTRA COPIES, AND I WILL BE GLAD TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU.
A     OKAY.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE HOUSEKEEPING MATTER, COUNSEL WOULD ASK THAT WHEN THE COMMITTEE RECEIVES TESTIMONY TODAY THAT RATHER THAN PERMANENTLY CLOSING THIS RECORD ONCE IT'S PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL, THAT THE COMMITTEE LEAVE THE RECORD--THIS BODY'S ABILITY TO REVISIT ANY ISSUE, OPEN, SUCH THAT THE QUESTIONS ASKED TODAY TO ANY JUDGE AND ANSWERS RECEIVED, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE PUBLIC AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AS TO FACTUAL ERROR. THIS COMMITTEE COULD COME BACK AND CONSIDER NEW INFORMATION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. I JUST ASK THAT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, NOT PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO YOU, JUDGE BRISTOW, BUT FOR ALL CANDIDATES TODAY.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, LET ME ASK THE COMMITTEE. WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: I SO MOVE.
SENATOR RUSSELL: SECONDED.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MOVED AND SECONDED. THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. THERE BEING NO DISCUSSION, MOVE THAT IT BE PUT TO A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

(AYE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: OPPOSED BY NAY.

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THE AYES HAVE IT.
(BY MR. COUICK) JUDGE BRISTOW, YOU SERVED ON THE COURT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE YOUR RETIREMENT, AND WERE---
A     12 YEARS.
Q     ---VERY ACTIVE, AND YOU HAVE ALSO BEEN VERY ACTIVE AS A PUBLIC SERVANT BEFORE THAT, AS WELL. DO YOU CONTINUE TO ENJOY YOUR SERVICE ON THE COURT?
A     WELL, I GUESS I MUST, OR I WOULDN'T DO IT; SO, IT'S FULFILLING IN A MEANINGFUL SORT OF WAY. OF COURSE, WITH ANYTHING THAT YOU DO, YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO DON'T APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO OR THINK YOU DID IT WRONG; BUT AS YOU GENTLEMEN WHO SERVE IN PUBLIC OFFICE KNOW, IF YOU DO ANYTHING, SOMEBODY IS NOT GOING TO CARE FOR IT.
Q     WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE HOW MANY TIMES A YEAR OR A MONTH OR A WEEK THAT YOU SERVE AS JUDGE, AND IS THAT---
A     VERY RECENTLY I HAVE BEEN SERVING WHAT THEY CALL "FULL-TIME," I'VE BEEN HOLDING MOSTLY NONJURY COURT, AND SINCE IT'S NONJURY, A PERSON HOLDING NONJURY COURT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME TIME TO CONSIDER HIS ORDERS AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. I'VE BEEN HOLDING COURT TWO WEEKS A MONTH.
Q     FOR THAT YOU ARE PAID BY THE STATE IN ADDITION TO YOUR RETIREMENT INCOME; IS THAT---
A     THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETIREMENT PAY AND WHAT A FULL-TIME JUDGE IS PAID.
Q     SO WHEN YOU REPORTED ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED RETIREMENT SALARY A LITTLE IN EXCESS OF $62,000 AND THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED SALARY AS A PART-TIME JUDGE CLOSE TO 28,000, THAT 28,000 WAS THE DIFFERENCE THAT---
A     WELL, IT'S NOT EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY STARTED INCLUDING THE TRAVEL, THE PER DIEM FOR TRAVEL INTO YOUR SALARY; AND YOU WILL SEE I HAVE ONE LITTLE PLACE THERE, $400 I THINK IS FOR---
Q     TRAVEL EXPENSE?
A     ---TRAVEL PER DIEM AFTER THEY--I DON'T--I REALLY AM NOT EXACTLY CERTAIN HOW IT WORKS, TO BE TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT, EXCEPT THAT FOR PART OF IT IS TAXABLE AND PART OF IT IS NOT. THE PART THAT'S TAXABLE IS INCLUDED IN YOUR SALARY, AND THE PART THAT'S NOT IS NOT.
Q     YES, SIR. JUDGE, YOU INDICATE IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE P.D.., THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, REGARDING JUDICIAL EDUCATION, YOUR ANSWER WAS: I HAVE ATTENDED MOST OF THE JUDICIAL LEGAL EDUCATION SEMINARS PRESENTED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS; HOWEVER, I HAVE MISSED SOME DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS.
Q     COULD YOU TELL ME THAT AS TO THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, HOW MANY HOURS OF J.C.L.E YOU HAVE ATTENDED EACH YEAR?
A     I DON'T KNOW. HERE, AGAIN, THE SYSTEM IS SOMEWHAT CHANGED. THEY USED TO HAVE THE MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR JUDGES, THOSE THAT CAME OUT, IF YOU GET THE BAR ASSOCIATION CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FORM, IT HAD J.C.L.E., AND ALL JUDGES WERE REQUIRED TO ATTEND THOSE. BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FUNDS, HOWEVER, RECENTLY THEY SAID THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY J.C.L.E.'S. THEY HAVE HAD C.L.E.'S WHICH WERE NOT REQUIRED. I ATTENDED ALL THE REQUIRED ONES, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY THAT IS BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q     YOU NOTE THAT RULE 504 WAS SUSPENDED UNTIL JANUARY 1ST, 1993.
A     WELL, ANYWAY, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO RETIRED JUDGES. I HAVE A RULING FROM THE COMMISSION THAT SAYS THAT RETIRED JUDGES, THERE IS NO MANDATORY RETIREMENT FOR RETIRED JUDGES.
Q     I'M GLAD YOU BRING THAT UP, JUDGE; I HAD CALLED YESTERDAY AND ASKED COURT ADMINISTRATION, AND ALSO HAD ASKED THEM TO CONTACT THE COMMISSION. THEY DID NOT REFERENCE ANY RULING.
A     I HAVE ONE ADDRESSED TO ME, BUT I CAN GET IT TO YOU IF YOU WANT ME TO.
Q     OKAY; SO, IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION AS A RETIRED JUDGE?
A     YES.
Q     WOULD YOU FIND IT TO BE A PROBLEM TO GO THROUGH CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION AS A RETIRED JUDGE?
A     NO, SIR; THERE IS ONE THING THAT THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO CONSIDER WHEN TALKING WITH ALL RETIRED JUDGES IN THAT REGARD AND THAT IS THAT WE DON'T GET ANY APPROPRIATION FOR PER DIEM, MILEAGE, OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT, OR OFFER OF PAYMENTS FOR ADMISSION FEES OR WHATEVER THEY ARE FOR THESE THINGS. IT WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT OF OUR POCKET, BUT WE CERTAINLY COULD DO IT, OR CHANGE THE LAW AND PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION.
Q     WOULD IT SEEM TO BE AN APPROPRIATE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO HANDLE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF COURT WORK THAT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE THAT YOU WOULD ATTEND SOME J.C.L.E. OR C.L.E. TO KEEP UP WITH EMERGING ISSUES?
A     IT'S ALWAYS APPROPRIATE. IT'S CERTAINLY--YOU CAN'T BE EDUCATED TOO MUCH, I GUESS.
Q     YES, SIR. JUDGE, I HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT AN ANSWER YOU GAVE ON QUESTION NUMBER 32 OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT AVAILABLE?
A     THEY SENT ME ONE, SO--(PAUSE, VIEWING DOCUMENTS).
Q     QUESTION NUMBER 32.
A     (PAUSE, VIEWING DOCUMENT.) ALL RIGHT.
Q     THIS WAS A MATTER OF A COMPLAINT TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 26TH, 1992 ABOUT YOUR DECISION IN A CHARLESTON COUNTY CASE, AND YOU GO ON TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION ADVISED YOU ON JANUARY 14TH, 1993 THAT THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. COULD YOU CHARACTERIZE FOR THE COMMITTEE'S BENEFIT THE TYPE OF COMPLAINT, NOT THE SPECIFICS?
A     YES, SIR, I CAN. IT'S THE SAME KIND OF COMPLAINT THAT THIS GENTLEMAN OVER HERE HAS AGAINST ME, THEY DISAGREED WITH MY DECISION, AND INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH IS THE PROPER PLACE, THEY COMPLAINED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE--COMMISSION DISMISSED IT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND SAID IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPEALED. IT WAS NOTHING ABOUT MY CHARACTER OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT.
Q     SO THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT ABOUT YOUR BEHAVIOR, JUDICIAL DEMEANOR, OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT WITHIN THAT COMPLAINT?
A     IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN APPEAL BECAUSE THEY DISAGREED WITH THE DECISION.
Q     YOU REFERENCE, TOO, THE RECENTLY FILED COMPLAINT BY MR. SCOTT, AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, JUDGE BRISTOW, IS SAVE THAT UNTIL HE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD AND THEN CALL YOU BACK AND HAVE YOU SPEAK TO THAT. ONE LAST QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR YOU IS THAT YOU MENTION ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST THAT YOU HAD ATTENDED A WEEKEND WITH THE TRIAL LAWYERS.
A     YES, SIR, I ASSUME ALL OF THE JUDGES HAVE GOT THAT DOWN, UNLESS THEY DIDN'T GO, BECAUSE THEY INVITED ALL OF THE TRIAL JUDGES TO THEIR ANNUAL CONVENTION.
Q     JUDGE, ASIDE FROM THAT TYPE OF GIFT FROM A GROUP OF JUDGES OR INVITATION FROM A GROUP OF JUDGES, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY OTHER TYPES OF GIFTS FROM SINGLE LAWYERS OR FROM A FIRM OF LAWYERS, EVEN TO THE POINT OF IT BEING SOCIAL HOSPITALITY?
A     WELL, I HAVE BEEN INVITED TO SEVERAL PARTIES, BUT I DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN ORDINARY SOCIAL HOSPITALITY. BUT NOT IN RECENT YEARS. BACK IN WHAT SOME FOLKS REFER TO AS "THE GOOD OLD DAYS," IS ANOTHER MATTER, BUT SINCE--NOT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM ANY LAWYERS.
Q     SO EXCEPT FOR THIS TRIP THAT YOU TOOK WITH SOUTH CAROLINA TRIAL LAWYERS, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE CANONS IS PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS FOR A GROUP OF LAWYERS, AS OPPOSED TO A FIRM OR AN INDIVIDUAL LAWYER, YOU HAVE RECEIVED NO OTHER SUBSTANTIAL---
A     NOT THAT I KNOW OF, OR NOT THAT I CAN REMEMBER, LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY.
Q     JUDGE, JUST DEVELOPING THE ISSUE OF "SOCIAL HOSPITALITY" FOR JUST ONE MOMENT SO THAT I CAN SHORTCUT MY ANSWERS OR QUESTIONS TO EVERYBODY ELSE TODAY, TELL ME WHAT YOU CHARACTERIZE AS "SOCIAL HOSPITALITY"; WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE? DOES IT INCLUDE A HUNT AND A MEAL? DOES IT INCLUDE A ROUND OF GOLF AND A MEAL?
A     I DON'T HUNT AND I DON'T PLAY GOLF; SO, THOSE DON'T BOTHER ME.
Q     I SEE.
A     I CAN'T ANSWER THOSE BECAUSE I NEVER HAVE--I HAVEN'T BEEN IN ON A HUNT SINCE REMBERT DENNIS DIED. NOW HE USED TO INVITE ME DOWN TO A TURKEY SHOOT, ALONG WITH A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE, BUT I NEVER SHOT ANY TURKEYS. I JUST WENT DOWN THERE FOR THE COMPANIONSHIP. BUT I WOULD CALL AN INVITATION TO A PARTY, A SUPPER PARTY OR A DINNER PARTY, OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT, OR A COOKOUT, AS SOCIAL HOSPITALITY, OR COCKTAIL PARTIES, THINGS OF THAT SORT, WEDDING RECEPTIONS.
Q     JUDGE, IF YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH AN INVITATION TO A SOCIAL EVENT LIKE THAT AND THERE WAS LITIGATION PENDING BEFORE YOU, HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THAT INVITATION?
A     I PROBABLY WOULDN'T GO IF I HAD LITIGATION PENDING BEFORE ME IF THAT PERSON WAS INVOLVED, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING IN THE CANONS THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. IT JUST SAYS "ORDINARY SOCIAL HOSPITALITY."
Q     JUDGE, YOU HAVE ALSO BEEN ON THE BENCH LONG ENOUGH TO BE ACQUAINTED WITH THAT SOMETIMES THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES. WHAT IS YOUR CARDINAL RULE? HOW DO YOU APPROACH THAT?
A     I TRY TO AVOID IT AT ALL TIMES. I DON'T EVEN LIKE THE RULE THAT SAYS THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO FILE TRIAL BRIEFS WITH THE JUDGE AND NOT SHOW THEM TO THE OTHER SIDE, BUT I WAS OUTVOTED ON THAT AND IT'S IN THE RULES. BUT I WILL SAY THAT IT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT. LET ME GIVE YOU FOR AN EXAMPLE, AND I'M SURE I SPEAK FOR ALL THE RETIRED JUDGES IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SECRETARIES, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OFFICES, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OF THAT SORT, AS A RESULT OF WHICH, WE HAVE TO DEPEND UPON THE LAWYERS TO DRAW THE ORDERS; OTHERWISE, WE WOULDN'T GET THEM DRAWN. NOW THAT MEANS THAT I TRY TO ANNOUNCE FROM THE BENCH THE RULING AND HAVE THE LAWYER, ANNOUNCE THEN THAT THE LAWYER WHO WILL DRAW THE ORDER, MAIL IT TO ME AND I SIGN IT. BUT SOMETIMES THEY DON'T DO IT CORRECTLY. THEN YOU HAVE TO SEND IT BACK. WELL, NOW IT IS TELLING THEM YOU HAVE GOT TO RE-DO THIS. IS THAT AN EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION? - I DON'T KNOW. I SEND A CARBON COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE OTHER SIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT. THE SITUATION PROBABLY COULD BE RENDERED IF WE HAD A SECRETARY, BUT WE DON'T, AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR ONE.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     I JUST SAY THAT IT DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT. AND, OF COURSE, WHEN YOU TAKE MATTERS UNDER ADVISEMENT, WHICH YOU DO QUITE OFTEN, PARTICULARLY IN NONJURY WORK, YOU HAVE TO WRITE A LETTER TO BOTH SIDES SETTING OUT YOUR--UNLESS YOU HAVE TIME TO PREPARE THE FORMAL ORDER AND GET SOMEBODY TO TYPE IT FOR YOU.
Q     JUDGE, WHEN YOU ASK AN ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDER FOR YOUR SIGNATURE, DO YOU ASK THAT THEY SHARE THAT WITH THE OTHER SIDE BEFORE THEY SUBMIT IT TO YOU?
A     NO, I DON'T USUALLY. I'LL ANNOUNCE IN OPEN COURT WHAT THE RESULT IS; I DON'T SEE WHY THERE SHOULD BE ANY WORRY ABOUT THAT BEING AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, BUT I DON'T DO THAT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN---
A     SOMETIMES THEY DO IT ON THEIR OWN.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE AT THIS TIME, IF WE COULD, TO CALL MR. SCOTT TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS COMPLAINT AND HAVE THE JUDGE COME BACK AFTER HE HAS TESTIFIED.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. SCOTT.
MR. SCOTT: YES, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IF YOU WANT TO COME UP ON UP, SIR.
MR. SCOTT: I HAVE A STATEMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ TO THE COMMITTEE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, SIR, BEFORE YOU DO, IF YOU WOULD, JUST RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND FOR ME.
WALTER H. SCOTT, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. HAVE A SEAT, AND PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. SCOTT WOULD ASK THAT HIS STATEMENT BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. TO EXPEDITE THIS MORNING, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALLOW THE STATEMENT TO BE ENTERED VERBATIM AND THAT MR. SCOTT BE ALLOWED TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS COMPLAINT, AND LET ME ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. I THINK THAT MAY BE MORE FRUITFUL, MR.SCOTT, THAN YOUR READING YOUR STATEMENT. (COMPLAINT) MR.CHAIRMAN, ALL MEMBERS HAVE A COPY BEFORE THEM IN THEIR PACKETS UNDER THE PINK SHEET.

Received: April 20, 1993
Legislative Committee Panel Members:

I have lived in South Carolina most of my 65 years of life. During this span of time I have always believed in the judicial process through which we govern ourselves. I have taught my children to respect the laws of this great state and felt completely assured that fair and equal justice could be received by all. Regrettably, my trust and faith in the South Carolina judicial system has been shattered due to a decision by a circuit court judge, The Honorable Walter J. Bristow, Jr. His failure to look at the paperwork on my appeal from a magistrate's court, which clearly showed I was owed additional money on two vehicles in a claim and delivery action. I feel that if this judge had taken the time to review this case the outcome would have been different. I feel that the above example reveals the judicial system has been damaged by the state policy of allowing retired judges to decide case overloads. I believe that these judges do not necessarily seek to ensure that justice for all is achieved, but seek to merely hand down fast and hasty decisions.

I am here today to inform this committee of these injustices and I feel confident this committee will respond in a manner that will ensure the legal rights of all citizens are protected.

Thank you for allowing me to state this complaint.

Because of Judge Bristow's wrongful decision, I am now involved in a large civil suit against me with large attorney's fees. I would hope this Committee fees fit to let The Honorable Judge Bristow hang up his robe and retire permanently from the bench.

Walter H. Scott, 7523 Stone Street, Columbia, SC 29209
/s/Walter H. Scott
(notarized)

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. SCOTT, IN A COUPLE OF BRIEF SENTENCES TELL THE COMMITTEE WHAT THE GRAVAMEN OR THE ESSENCE OF YOUR COMPLAINT IS. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COURTROOM THAT DAY THAT CAUSED YOU TO BE HERE TODAY TO COMPLAIN AGAINST MR. BRISTOW?
A     WOULD I BE ALLOWED TO STATE THE PURPOSE, THE REASON THAT I WENT TO CIRCUIT COURT, OR NOT?
Q     YES, SIR. YES, SIR, PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
A     ALL RIGHT. I TOOK A CLAIM AND DELIVERY ACTION AGAINST A CUSTOMER THAT I HAD ON A COUPLE OF VEHICLES; AND THE MORTGAGE ON THOSE TWO VEHICLES, IF I REMEMBER, IS ABOUT $210. AND THE MAN PAID $100 DEPOSIT ON EACH VEHICLE. AND HE HAD PAID $1100, I THINK THAT IS ALL THE RECEIPTS THAT HE HAD THAT HE HAD PAID. AND THE ATTORNEY--I DON'T KNOW WHY THE MAGISTRATE DONE THAT, BUT THE ATTORNEY KEPT--HE HAD HIM A RECEIPT AND HE WOULD ADD IT UP AND THEN KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH UNTIL THE MAGISTRATE MADE A MISTAKE. AND THE SIGNED DOCUMENTS AND THE MORTGAGE WITH THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT PROVES, YOU KNOW, JUST LOOKING AT THEM THAT MORE MONEY WAS OWED THAN WHAT THE MAN HAD PAID. SO I ASKED--I DIDN'T THINK I NEEDED AN ATTORNEY AT THAT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHEN MY PAPERWORK WOULD PROVE I WAS RIGHT. AND WE HAD TWO TRIALS OF IT. THE FIRST ONE, THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THE MAN TO PAY ME $1100 AND OR EITHER I KEEP THE VEHICLES. SO THE MAN WENT OVER AND GOT HIM AN ATTORNEY, HIRED HIM, AND HE BROUGHT IN A RECEIPT FOR 500 MORE DOLLARS THAT HAD BEEN PAID TO MY SON THAT I NEVER RECEIVED; AND I HAD AN ACTION FOR 1100 AGAINST HIM, AND THE MAGISTRATE GAVE HIM THE VEHICLES JUST BY BRINGING THE 500 MORE DOLLARS RECEIPT. AND I APPEALED IT TO CIRCUIT COURT, AND I HIRED AN ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME. AND WHEN I GOT TO CIRCUIT COURT, I WAS TOLD I COULDN'T SAY NOTHING, AND MY ATTORNEY JUST GOT UP AND STATED--I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, I NEVER RECEIVED ANY RECORDS OR ANYTHING FROM THE COURT. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD WHAT WAS SAID. BUT MY ATTORNEY JUST TOLD THE JUDGE THAT THERE WAS SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONEY THAT WAS PAID, AND THAT WAS ABOUT ALL. BUT THE OTHER ATTORNEY ON THE OPPOSING SIDE, HE GOT UP ON THERE AND TESTIFIED AND BROUGHT IN BAD--SAID THERE WAS BAD BLOOD BETWEEN ME AND MY SON, WHICH I STILL THINK SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTHING TO DO IN THAT TRIAL. AND THE CASE WENT AGAINST ME; AND TO THIS DAY, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RULING OR ANYTHING OF WHAT--HANDED DOWN FROM MY ATTORNEY OR ANYBODY.
SO THIS IS MY FIRST TIME EVER BEING IN COURT, OTHER THAN BEING ON THE JURY; SO, THIS IS ALL NEW TO ME, THIS STUFF.
Q     MR. SCOTT, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE TOLD YOU COULDN'T SAY ANYTHING IN COURT. DID JUDGE BRISTOW TELL YOU THAT YOU COULDN'T SAY ANYTHING IN COURT?
A     MY ATTORNEY SAID THAT BECAUSE I NUDGED--KEPT NUDGING HIM WHEN THE OTHER MAN KEPT TALKING SO MUCH ABOUT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH A FAMILY MEMBER THAT I WAS WANTING HIM TO OBJECT OR SOMETHING.
Q     AND WHEN YOU ASKED YOUR ATTORNEY TO OBJECT OR NUDGED HIM TO OBJECT, DID HE OBJECT?
A     HE DIDN'T SAY NOTHING, SAID YOU COULDN'T.
Q     SO HE NEVER ASKED JUDGE BRISTOW TO RULE THAT TESTIMONY AS BEING IRRELEVANT OR OTHERWISE OUT OF ORDER?
A     NO, HE DIDN'T OPEN HIS MOUTH TO NONE OF IT. AND ANOTHER THING, HE TOLD ME THE REASON THAT HE COULDN'T PREPARE MY CASE PROPERLY WAS BECAUSE MAGISTRATE SHOCKLEY HADN'T SENT THE PAPERWORK UP FROM THE COURT; AND, SO, I ACTUALLY GOT MAD. I LOST MY TEMPER OUT IN THE HALL, AND I LEFT THEN AND WENT DOWN TO THE CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE AND ASKED THEM FOR A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT; AND IT STATED RIGHT ON THE BACK OF THAT, 30 DAYS AFTER THE TRIAL IT HAD BEEN SENT UP TO THE CLERK OF COURT.
Q     MR. SCOTT, WHEN YOU WERE THERE IN THE COURTROOM WITH YOUR ATTORNEY AND YOU WERE DISSATISFIED, I TAKE IT YOU TOLD YOUR ATTORNEY THAT YOU WERE DISSATISFIED WITH---
A     YES, SIR.
Q     ---WHAT HE WAS DOING, BUT HE DIDN'T TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION TO NOTIFY THE JUDGE?
A     HE DIDN'T DO NOTHING BUT SIT THERE.
Q     SO, DID THE JUDGE DO ANYTHING? WAS HE RUDE TO YOU, WAS HE IMPERTINENT, DID HE FAIL TO LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT YOU OR YOUR LAWYER SAID?
A     WELL, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION WHEN MY LAWYER TOLD ME I COULDN'T SAY NOTHING THAT HE SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING; BUT HE DIDN'T SAY NOTHING EITHER, AND THE JUDGE DIDN'T TALK TO HIM NO MORE.
Q     SO ANYTHING THAT YOUR ATTORNEY SAID, WHICH WAS FAIRLY LIMITED BY YOUR DESCRIPTION, THE JUDGE LISTENED TO IT, IT'S JUST THAT APPARENTLY YOUR ATTORNEY DIDN'T SAY ENOUGH TO THE JUDGE?
A     HE DIDN'T SAY ENOUGH, BUT I THINK JUDGE BRISTOW SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE LAWYER DOWN THAT WAS BADMOUTHING ME AND MY RELATIONSHIP WITH A FAMILY MEMBER.
Q     WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAPPENED THAT DAY, MR. SCOTT, THAT MADE YOU THINK THAT JUDGE BRISTOW HAD A BIAS TOWARD YOU, A PREJUDICE TOWARD YOU THAT IN SOME WAY THAT HE TOOK SOME ACTION THAT WAS WRONG TOWARDS YOU?
A     YES. THERE WAS A STACK OF DOCUMENTS ABOUT THIS HIGH (INDICATED) ON HIS RIGHT SIDE; HE HAD PICKED THEM UP AND LOOKED AT THEM AND CALLED OUT THE DEFENDANT AND THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE, AND DIDN'T SAY VERY MUCH ABOUT IT, AND JUST HANDED ON THE CASE, DECIDED. I THINK THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT AFFECTS A PERSON WITH THAT KIND OF MONEY THAT'S INVOLVED--NOW SINCE THEN I'M IN A LARGE CIVIL SUIT OVER THIS RULING, AND I HAVE GOT MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS FROM THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SHOWING THAT I'M RIGHT.
Q     I HAD ASKED YOU WHEN WE MET ON TUESDAY WHEN YOU FILED YOUR COMPLAINT TO BRING ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO BRING?
A     I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS RIGHT HERE THAT WILL PROVE THAT I AM RIGHT.
Q     WELL, THAT PROVES THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN SO FAR THIS MORNING?
A     YES.
Q     OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT JUDGE BRISTOW DID THAT DAY THAT WRONGED YOU, ANYTHING ELSE THAT HE DID THAT DAY?
A     THE ONLY THING THAT I THINK HAPPENED THERE WAS A HASTY DECISION. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ASKED, YOU KNOW, AND ALLOWED TO ANSWER TO PRODUCE STUFF WHEN YOU GO TO THAT EXPENSE AND THE TIME FRAME TO BRING A COURT CASE, YOU KNOW, THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST SOMEBODY.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MR. SCOTT FOR COMING TODAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK JUDGE BRISTOW QUESTIONS AS APPROPRIATE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, SIR. ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

MR. COUICK: THANK YOU, MR. SCOTT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: JUDGE BRISTOW.
JUDGE BRISTOW: ALL RIGHT.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     JUDGE BRISTOW, YOU'RE STILL SWORN, AND THIS IS JUST A CONTINUATION OF YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY. I TAKE IT FROM MR. SCOTT'S DESCRIPTION THAT YOU WERE HANDLING WHAT YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER TO BE ONE OF THESE NONJURY TERMS IN THE COURTHOUSE, EITHER IN LEXINGTON OR RICHLAND COUNTY, AND THAT THIS WAS ONE OF A NUMBER OF MATTERS THAT YOU WERE HANDLING. COULD THAT BE THE CASE?
A     WELL, I DON'T--LET ME SAY THAT OFFHAND THAT I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONSCIOUS RECOLLECTION OF THE CASE; HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HE SAYS, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY AN APPEAL FROM A MAGISTRATE'S COURT. AN APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S COURT, YOU HAVE TO GO BY THE RECORD BELOW. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY TO BE PUT IN, UNLESS THERE IS SOME COMPLAINT ABOUT ILLEGAL PROCEDURE OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT; SO, ORDINARILY THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTIONS BACK AND FORTH. I WOULD LISTEN TO THE LAWYERS' ARGUMENTS AND MAKE MY DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE ME. THE GENTLEMAN MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT, PLEASE, DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME; BUT IF IT'S AS OBVIOUS AS HE SAYS, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE MAGISTRATE AND I BOTH--I MEAN, ALL I DID WAS SIMPLY AFFIRM THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. AND, HERE AGAIN, IF I WAS WRONG, HE COULD HAVE APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT OR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. GOSH KNOWS, I'M NOT PERFECT. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS TELL ME THAT EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE. BUT I DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER THE CASE, AND I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T--I'VE NEVER MET THE GENTLEMAN BEFORE AS FAR AS I KNOW, AND I HAVE NO BIAS OR PREJUDICE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST HIM.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

(NONE VOICED.)

MR. SCOTT: ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. SCOTT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
JUDGE LUKE BROWN. GOOD MORNING, SIR.
JUDGE BROWN: GOOD MORNING.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IF YOU WOULD, JUST RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND FOR ME.

THE HONORABLE LUKE N. BROWN, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. HAVE A SEAT.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     I NOTICE THAT YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS BACK ON, WHAT, MAY THE 9TH, 1991.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IT HASN'T BEEN TOO LONG AGO. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IS IT CORRECT? DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IF YOU WOULD, PUT IT TO--RECORD IT TO THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Luke N. Brown, Jr.
Home Address:                                 Business Address:
P. O. Box 879                                 P. O. Box 879
Ridgeland, SC 29936                 Ridgeland, SC 29936

2.     He was born in McCormick, South Carolina, on November 16, 1919. He is presently 73 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Hazel Rejane Gouldon on October 13, 1942. He has five children: Sharon B. Wall, age 49 (rural mail carrier); Luke N., III, age 46 (attorney); Rhett B. McGehee, age 43 (housewife); Stephanie B. Morton, age 40 (ticket agent for airlines); and Pamela B. Altman, age 39 (legal secretary).

5.     Military Service: Service No. 656 08 35; U. S. Navy; entered service September 30, 1941; discharged June 18, 1943; Honorable Discharge (Medical); Rank: QM 3/C

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina; LLB; September 1947 through September 1951.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended all CLE's as required, including most JCLE's.

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
JCLE - "From the Judge's Viewpoint in the Courtroom"

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1951 to 1958         Partner in firm of Walker & Brown, Ridgeland, SC
1958 to 1962         Partner in firm of Walker, Brown & McKellar, Ridgeland, SC
1962 to 1969         Sole practitioner in Law Offices of Luke N. Brown, Jr., Ridgeland, SC
1969 to 1971         Partner in firm of Brown & Brown, Ridgeland, SC.
1971 to 1980         Sole practitioner in Law Offices of Luke N. Brown, Jr., Ridgeland, SC
1980 to 1991         Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit
1991 to present     Judge, Retired of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit

20.     Judicial Office:
Elected Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, March 26, 1980. Assumed office July 11, 1980, and served until November 16, 1991. November 17, 1991, assumed the position of Retired "part-time" Judge and has served in this capacity since that date.

21.     Five (5) of the Most Significant Orders or Opinions You Have Written:
He has not kept "affirmed" decisions by date.

22.     Public Office:
Appointed Chairman of the Jasper County Election Commission, 1966 to 1980

28.     He was arrested in 1951 and tried for night hunting. He was found not guilty by jury. This has been reported at each screening.

30.     Tax Lien:
10/14/58         Tax Lien filed by the South Carolina Tax Commission for $628.58. Satisfied 10/18/58
9/26/90         Tax Lien filed by the South Carolina Tax Commission for $41.58. Satisfied 10/1/60
31.     Sued:
1978         Henry E. Ingram, Jr., regarding dissolution of partnership involving land. It was settled by the parties (Jasper County).
1974         Gary D. Brown, regarding dissolution of law partnership. It was settled by the parties (Jasper County).
1973         Carolyn D. and John D. Herndon, alleging co-ownership of property. It was dismissed (Jasper County).
1976         FDIC, regarding suit for collection on endorsement note. A Judgment was paid (Federal Court C/A 76-626).
1976         Marian Weed, regarding suit for collection on endorsement note. A Judgment was paid (Federal Court C/A 76-251).
1974         Miriam Coldanchise. He was named as a co-defendant in an action involving a suit to quiet title for work done by her attorneys. He was dismissed as a co-defendant by Judge Robert Chapman on July 21, 1976 and January 27, 1977 (C/A 74-482).
1982         By a defendant along with various Clerks of Court, Family Court Judges, Sheriffs and other parties entitled: Mary D.S. Peters vs. Morgan J. McCutcheon, W. Henry Jackson, Luke N. Brown, Jr., C. C. Mattox, Randolph Murdaugh, Jr. and Beaufort County, South Carolina. There was a directed verdict by the Federal District Court; affirmed by U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals; status to U. S. Supreme Court unknown.
1990         Moses Anderson, Jr., regarding suit against James W. Hancock, Jr., Attorney in Rock Hill and Judge Brown, claiming he discriminated against him in conduct of his trial. A Motion to Dismiss and supporting Memorandum was filed by the Office of the Attorney General on November 16, 1990. It was dismissed.

32.     Disciplined: Evelyn Frist, a client of Luke Brown and William Fant (Attorney from Anderson County) complained of disbursement of settlement proceedings. He received a private reprimand before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline on January 10, 1975.

33.     His health is excellent. His last physical was February 23, 1990, by Dr. Ronald Fagin, Savannah, Georgia.

34.     Hospitalized: He had triple by-pass surgery at Memorial Hospital, Savannah, Georgia on June 2, 1984.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Masonic Lodge #98, Ridgeland, SC; A & A Scottish Rites, Savannah, Georgia of Free Masonry; Shriner Omar Temple, Charleston, SC; American Legion Post #58, Ridgeland, SC; St. Pauls United Methodist Church, Ridgeland, SC; USC Alumni; USC Education Foundation; USC Gamecock Club; Half Scholarship Member; Sponsor of Ducks Unlimited, Inc.; Mary Heyward Chapter #124, O.E.S., Ridgeland, SC

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     James R. Rhodes, Jr., Vice President
First National Bank
P. O. Box 880, Ridgeland, SC 29936
(b)     Ms. Zenie M. Ingram, Executive Director
Jasper County Chamber of Commerce
Box 1267, Ridgeland, SC 29936
(c)     Randy M. Blackmon, Sheriff
Jasper County
P. O. Box 1366, Ridgeland, SC 29936
(d)     D. P. Lowther, Chairman
Jasper County Council
P. O. Drawer F, Ridgeland, SC 29936
(e)     R. Thayer Rivers, Jr., Esquire
Secretary/Treasurer, Jasper County Bar
P. O. Drawer 668, Ridgeland, SC 29936

Q     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT AS AN ATTORNEY THAT NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. I UNDERSTAND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE RECORDS OF APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. THAT WOULD BE THE JASPER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE RIDGELAND CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF JASPER COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURTS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU. THERE ARE SEVEN CIVIL SUITS. SIX OF THESE SUITS ALLEGE VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND WERE ALL DISMISSED. THE REPORT INDICATES THAT YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT.WE HAVE RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS; AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY. IF YOU WOULD, JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MR. COUICK HAS FOR YOU, SIR.
A     BE GLAD TO.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     JUDGE BROWN, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING I SAY, PLEASE, ASK ME AND I'LL SPEAK UP; AND IF YOU NEED ANY DOCUMENTS, WE WILL BE GLAD TO SUPPLY THOSE, TOO.
A     THANK YOU.
Q     YOU MAY NEED A COPY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE WITH YOU NOW.
A     IF YOU'D PASS IT UP; I APOLOGIZE, I WAS IN COURT IN GREENWOOD, AND I LEFT MY BRIEFCASE. (DOCUMENT WAS HANDED TO JUDGE BROWN.)
A     THANK YOU.
Q     JUDGE BROWN, IF YOU WOULD TURN TO QUESTION NUMBER 32 ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE?
A     ALL RIGHT, SIR.
Q     COULD YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE TO THE COMMITTEE WHAT WAS INVOLVED IN THAT COMPLAINT THAT WAS MADE AGAINST YOU AND ATTORNEY WILLIAM FANT AND RESOLVED BACK IN 1975?
A     WELL, IN 1975 I REPRESENTED EVELYN FRIST ALONG WITH WILLIAM FANT. IT WAS A LONG LITIGATION BETWEEN AN EX-HUSBAND. WE WON THE LAWSUIT, AND WE HAD DONE SOME ADDITIONAL WORK ON ANOTHER FILE FOR HER, AND SHE OBJECTED TO ME DEDUCTING $1,000 TO APPLY TO THAT FILE. SHE ASKED THAT I REFUND IT BECAUSE IT WAS ON ANOTHER FILE, AND I REFUSED TO DO SO; AND THAT'S HOW IT CAME ABOUT. THAT WAS 1975, I BELIEVE IT WAS. (PAUSE, VIEWING DOCUMENT.) YES.
Q     AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A PRIVATE REPRIMAND?
A     YES.
Q     AND YOU DID RETURN THE MONEY---
A     YES, SIR.
Q     ---TO HER, YES, SIR. JUDGE,---
A     WAIT A MINUTE, I APOLOGIZE, I DID NOT RETURN THE MONEY TO HER.
Q     YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE HOSPITALIZED IN QUESTION 34 FOR A TRIPLE-BYPASS SURGERY; IS EVERYTHING OKAY NOW?
A     IN 1984; I HAVEN'T TAKEN ANY MEDICINE SINCE.
Q     OKAY; DO YOU STILL ENJOY SERVING ON THE BENCH?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     HOW OFTEN DO YOU SERVE AS A RETIRED JUDGE?
A     AS JUDGE BRISTOW, FULL-TIME, EXCEPT THAT I TAKE BOTH, I TAKE CIVIL AND NONJURY AND JURY; SO, I WORK AT LEAST THREE WEEKS A MONTH, SOMETIMES FOUR, OCCASIONALLY FOUR, NOT VERY OFTEN.
Q     AND AS WITH JUDGE BRISTOW, YOU ARE PAID A RETIREMENT SALARY OF APPROXIMATELY, RIGHT AT $70,000 A YEAR; AND YOU HAVE DRAWN IN THE LAST YEAR, I GUESS, A SALARY AND SOME OF YOUR EXPENSE MONEY, ROUGHLY $23,000?
A     THE SAME AS JUDGE BRISTOW.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     WE GET THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT OUR TIME IS.
Q     ONE QUESTION I ASKED JUDGE BRISTOW WAS ON CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION, AND YOU INDICATED IN THE QUESTION NUMBER 8 ANSWER THAT YOU ATTENDED C.L.E.'S AS REQUIRED, INCLUDING MOST J.C.L.E.'S. JUDGE BRISTOW INDICATED THAT HE DIDN'T THINK THAT ANY WERE REQUIRED.
A     WELL, IT WASN'T REQUIRED LAST YEAR, BUT MOST OF US GO TO THEM. THEY HAVE THE SPRING ONE IN HICKORY KNOB. THEY HAVE THE ONE IN THE FALL AND THEY HAVE THE LAW CLERKS THERE. AND THEN THEY HAVE ONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUMMER. MOST OF US GO, AND I HAVE ALWAYS ATTENDED THEM UNLESS I GOT EXCUSED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     BUT I HADN'T REALLY GIVEN IT TOO MUCH THOUGHT. I ASSUME THEY ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE SOME J.C.L.E.'S IF Y'ALL GIVE THEM THE MONEY, I THINK.
Q     JUDGE, ONE OTHER MATTER THAT CAME TO COUNSEL'S ATTENTION IN YOUR CHECK OF YOUR CREDIT, AT&T INDICATES--I BELIEVE IT MIGHT BE THE AT&T UNIVERSAL CARD, INDICATES THAT THERE IS A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PENDING BETWEEN YOU AND THAT COMPANY.
A     I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
Q     ALL RIGHT, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK THAT.
A     MY WIFE IS OUTSIDE.

(LAUGHTER.)

A     SHE CAN TELL YOU WHAT IT IS. I HAVE NO IDEA.
Q     ALL RIGHT, I HOPE I DIDN'T CAUSE ANY PROBLEM.
A     I DON'T HAVE A BIT OF PROBLEM AT ALL. I DO HAVE GOOD CREDIT.
Q     YOU HAVE EXCELLENT CREDIT. THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD ON THAT.
A     IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, I'LL BRING HER RIGHT IN HERE.
Q     NO, I'VE GOT A WIFE, TOO, AND THAT WOULD BE THE WORST THING I COULD DO. JUDGE, ONE LAST QUESTION OR TWO ON THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION AND GIFTS. YOU HEARD THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED JUDGE BRISTOW; IT'S MORE OR LESS A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW AS TO EX PARTE COMMUNICATION? HOW DO YOU PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR COURT AND ITS RULINGS FROM BEING TAINTED BY EX PARTE--IMPROPER EX PARTE COMMUNICATION?
A     WELL, I AGREE WITH JUDGE BRISTOW, WE DON'T HAVE A SECRETARY OR A LAW CLERK ANYMORE, AND I CALL THE ATTORNEY. I DO VERY LITTLE CORRESPONDENCE. WHAT CORRESPONDENCE I DO, I GET MY DAUGHTER TO DO IT AND PAY HER. SHE IS A LEGAL SECRETARY. I CALL THE ATTORNEY IF I DON'T RULE--IF I RULE FROM THE BENCH, AND I RULE JUST LIKE JUDGE BRISTOW, AND IT'S MUCH EASIER TO DO IT ON NONJURY; BUT IF I DON'T RULE FROM THE BENCH, IF I TAKE SOMETHING UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHEN I MAKE A DECISION, I CALL THE ATTORNEY AND TELL HIM WHAT I WANT IN THE ORDER, WHO HAS PREVAILED; AT THE SAME TIME, I CALL THE ATTORNEY WHO LOSES AND TELL HIM WHAT MY RULING IS. AND I REQUIRE THE ATTORNEY WHO PREPARES THE ORDER TO SEND IT, A COPY OF IT TO THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY SO THAT HE CAN LOOK IT OVER TO SEE IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT HE OBJECTS TO; AND THEN I SIGN IT. I DON'T DISCUSS IT ANY OTHER TIME. I TRY NOT TO EX PARTE. OCCASIONALLY SOME ATTORNEY WILL COME IN CHAMBERS AND ASK SOMETHING; IF I FEEL THAT IT'S IMPROPER, I TELL HIM SO.
Q     JUDGE BROWN, I ASKED THE QUESTION OF JUDGE BRISTOW ABOUT GIFTS AND ORDINARY HOSPITALITY. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY PROFESSOR JOHN FREEMAN APPROXIMATELY A YEAR-AND-A-HALF AGO WHICH APPEARED IN SOUTH CAROLINA LAWYER THAT SAID THAT THE BEST THING THAT A JUDGE COULD DO WAS NOT TAKE ANYTHING FROM AN ATTORNEY, EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT APPEARING BEFORE HIM, AND HE PUT FORTH A THREE-PART TEST. THE FIRST TEST WAS: WOULD YOUR MOTHER APPROVE OF IT? THE SECOND THING WAS: HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF IT APPEARED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE STATE NEWSPAPER THE NEXT DAY? THE THIRD PART OF THE TEST. HOW WOULD IT LOOK BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WHAT IS YOUR APPROACH ON THAT? HOW DO YOU HANDLE MAKING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ORDINARY SOCIAL HOSPITALITY, WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE CANONS AND WHAT IS TRULY A GIFT?
A     WELL, I'M KIND OF LIKE JUDGE BRISTOW, I GUESS; WE TALK ABOUT THE GOOD OLD DAYS, AND GOING TO OTHER SCHOOLS IN OTHER STATES THE JUDGES ARE PRETTY AMAZED AT HOW--WHAT A RELAXED ATMOSPHERE ATTORNEYS HAVE WITH JUDGES IN SOUTH CAROLINA. OF COURSE, OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE HAVE BECOME MUCH MORE STRICT. I THINK JUST A SOCIAL GATHERING IS ALL RIGHT. I STAY AWAY FROM HAVING OR GOING TO DINNER WITH ANY PARTICULAR ATTORNEY IF THERE'S ANYTHING PENDING; BUT I, JUST LIKE ALL THE REST OF THE JUDGES, HAVE FRIENDS THAT WE GREW UP WITH AND WENT TO SCHOOL WITH. WE JUST HAVE TO KIND OF GUIDE OURSELVES BY THAT. IF I HAVE LITIGATION BEFORE ME THAT I HAVE AN OLD CLASSMATE, I ALWAYS TELL THE OTHER ATTORNEY; OR IF I HAVE DINNER WITH AN OLD FRIEND, I TELL THE ATTORNEY ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND IF HE OBJECTS, THEN I RECUSE MYSELF. BUT IT'S PRETTY EASY, I THINK.
Q     JUDGE, SAY YOU'RE HOLDING COURT IN YORK, SOUTH CAROLINA AND YOU'VE GOT A TERM OF NONJURY THERE, AND IT GETS TO BE LUNCHTIME AND YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT GOING DOWN TO SMITH'S AND HAVING LUNCH, AND YOU'VE GOT MAYBE A FINE ATTORNEY LIKE MELVIN MCKEOWN STANDING RIGHT THERE, AND HE'S GOT A CASE UP BEFORE YOU MAYBE THE NEXT DAY BECAUSE IN A SMALL TOWN LIKE YORK, YOU HAVE ATTORNEYS, THEY'RE BOUND TO HAVE A CASE BEFORE YOU SOME TIME, AND HE ASKS YOU TO GO TO LUNCH WITH HIM AND THAT CHECK COMES, WHAT DO YOU DO?
A     WELL, MOST OF THE TIME WE DON'T GO TO LUNCH WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE CASES BEFORE US; AND IN A LITTLE PLACE LIKE SMITTY'S UP THERE, EVERYBODY PAYS THEIR OWN; I USUALLY WOULD GO WITH JUDGE MOSS, WHO PASSED AWAY. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM, I DON'T THINK. I WOULDN'T LET HIM PICK UP MY CHECK.
Q     IF IT WAS AN ATTORNEY AND IF IT WAS NOT A SOCIAL GATHERING, IF IT WAS JUST A LUNCH DURING A COURT SESSION OR WHATEVER, YOU WOULD GENERALLY PAY YOUR OWN TAB?
A     YES, SIR.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE BROWN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU. ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU, SIR.
JUDGE BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, GLAD TO HAVE YOU.
JUDGE FRANK EPPES. GOOD MORNING, SIR.
JUDGE BROWN: CAN WE BE EXCUSED WHEN WE ARE FINISHED?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, ANY OF Y'ALL ARE WELCOME TO GO.
JUDGE BROWN: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: GOOD MORNING.
JUDGE EPPES: GOOD MORNING.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IF YOU WOULD, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

THE HONORABLE FRANK EPPES, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOU, SIR, HAVE A SEAT. AND I NOTE, TOO, THAT IT HASN'T BEEN TOO LONG AGO WITH YOU, OCTOBER 16TH, 1990. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     AND DO YOU FEEL THAT IT'S CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     IT'S CORRECT. IT DOESN'T NEED ANY CLARIFICATION.
Q     IS THERE ANY OBJECTION THEN OF MAKING THIS SUMMARY PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IT SHALL BE DONE AT THAT POINT IN TIME IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Frank Eppes
Home Address:                                         Business Address:
#8 Hickory Lane
Greenville, SC 29609

2.     He was born in Greenville, South Carolina, on November 28, 1922. He is presently 70 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married and has four children: Frank L. (lawyer, New York City); Elizabeth McCall Eppes Thackston; John A. (Navy); and Martha Cary (student).
5.     Military Service: Army Air Force; 3/43 - 3/46; 34651201; Honorable Discharge

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, 1950, AB Degree; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1950-1952. He passed the Bar 8/53.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
15 hours CLE each year

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
General Practice for 9 years prior to being elected as Circuit Judge in 1962

20.     Judicial Office:
Elected January 31, 1962, and reelected continuously until retired in July of 1985.

21.     Five (5) of the Most Significant Orders or Opinions You Have Written:
(a)     State v. Edward Richburg, 250 S.C. 451, 158 S.E.2d 769 (S.C. Supreme Court 1968), reversed and remanded. Murder case in which deputy sheriff was killed after an exchange of gunfire following a chase because of an alleged traffic violation.
(b)     State v. Linda A. Rutledge, 250 S.C. 451, 158 S.E.2d 250 (S.C. Supreme Court 1973). Murder case in which defendant was convicted of the murder of her husband by means of a hired assassin and later appealed. The Supreme Court upheld, finding no prejudice from joint trial or from order of proof allowed by the court or from curtailment of cross examination of State's witnesses as to the deceased husband's illegal activities.
(c)     State v. Charles Wakefield, 270 S.C. 293, 242 S.E.2d 219 (S.C. Supreme Court 1978). Murder case. The defendant was convicted of murder of a father and son while in the commission of an armed robbery and sentenced to death, pursuant to the Act of 1974, which the U. S. Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional as it relates to the death sentence. The S.C. Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, reversing only the imposition of the death penalty and remanded to the lower court for the purpose of sentencing him to life imprisonment.
(d)     Lowndes Products, Inc. v. Claude A. Browder, et al., 259 S.C. 322, 191 S.E.2d 761 (S. C. Supreme Court 1972). A former employer brought suit against former employees and others for injunction against misappropriation of trade secrets and for damages for same and breach of duty of loyalty. The Master-In-Equity recommended all relief sought by plaintiff be denied, the injunction be dissolved and plaintiff be charged with attorney's fees. Judge Eppes affirmed the Master's report. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
(e)     State v. Goode, Saluda County, 89-41-0343 and 89-41-0344, l990. Recent murder case.

22.     Public Office:
State Legislature from 1949-1962, elected 7 times

23.     Unsuccessful race: Governor's race, 1986

31.     Sued:
He has one pending litigation from a prisoner against him and another judge in Federal Court.

32.     Disciplined: No (Admonishment pertaining to James Brown)

33.     His health is good. His last physical was December 12, 1992 by Dr. S. C. Patel in Greenville, South Carolina.

35.     He wears corrective lens.

40.     Employment Other than Employment as a Judge by a Governmental Agency:
None other than arbitrate lawsuits consented to be both parties.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; American Bar Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Presbyterian Church (ARP)

50.     He is willing to hold court as long as the Chief Justice needs him and his good health continues.
51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Thomas C. Vandiver, Chairman Emeritus
Carolina First

102 South Main Street, P. O. Box 1029, Greenville, SC 29602
(b)     J. D. Todd, Jr., Esquire
Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann

100 East Coffee Street, P. O. Box 87, Greenville, SC 29602-0087
(c)     Rex L. Carter, Esquire
Carter, Smith, Merriam, Rogers & Traxler
900 East North Street, P. O. Box 10828, Greenville, SC 29603
(d)     Leo H. Hill, Esquire
Hill, Wyatt & Bannister
100 Williams Street at Pettigru, P. O. Box 2585, Greenville, SC 29602
(e)     John Hagins, President
Greenville County Bar Association
P. O. Box 2464, Greenville, SC 29602

Q     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE RECORDS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST YOU. THERE ARE THREE CIVIL ACTIONS FILED BY INCARCERATED PRISONERS. TWO OF THESE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. ONE HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS. YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD. OUR RECORDS SHOW NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, AND NO WITNESSES ARE PRESENT TO TESTIFY; SO, WITH THAT, I WILL ASK MR. COUICK IF HE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     GOOD MORNING, JUDGE EPPES.
A     GOOD MORNING.
Q     HOW ARE YOU DOING?
A     FINE.
Q     JUDGE, I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE AIKEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION HAS FORWARDED A LETTER OF COMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE AND IS ATTACHED IN THE MEMBERS' NOTEBOOKS UNDER THE PINK TAB. THE LETTER IS SIGNED BY MR. JAMES E. WHITTLE, JR., AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE AIKEN COUNTY BAR, MR. VAREEN, ALSO NOTES HIS SUPPORT IN THE RESOLUTION OF YOUR CANDIDACY. JUDGE, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME THIS MORNING, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, AND IF YOU NEED A DOCUMENT---
A     I COULD USE A COPY OF---
Q     IF WE COULD PASS TO JUDGE EPPES A COPY OF HIS PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, HE MAY NEED IT IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. (A DOCUMENT WAS HANDED TO JUDGE EPPES.)
Q     JUDGE, ON YOUR ECONOMIC INTEREST FORM THAT YOU FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE AS PART OF YOUR APPLICATION, YOU INDICATE THAT YOU RECEIVE JUDICIAL RETIREMENT AND UNDER THE AMOUNT VALUE PART, YOU INDICATE NOT APPLICABLE. YOU DO INDICATE THAT YOU RECEIVED WAGES OF $25,611.84. COULD YOU BRIEFLY TELL US SO THAT THE RECORD WILL BE COMPLETE WHAT YOUR RETIREMENT SALARY WAS AS A RETIRED JUDGE?
A     WHATEVER, IT IS.
Q     APPROXIMATELY 69,000?
A     APPROXIMATELY 69,000. I KNOW THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETIRED JUDGES AND IF YOU WORK FULL-TIME. I WORK THREE WEEKS A MONTH.
Q     JUDGE, IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR VOICE JUST A LITTLE BIT, OUR COURT REPORTER IS HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY.
A     ALL RIGHT.
Q     I THINK SHE CAUGHT MOST OF THAT BUT SHE'S SAYING THAT IF YOU WOULD SPEAK UP, IT WOULD HELP. JUDGE, YOU ALSO INDICATE ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME YOU SERVE AS AN ARBITRATOR TO HELP FOLKS RESOLVE CASES WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO COURT. UNDER WHOSE AUSPICES DO YOU DO THAT? IS THAT A BAR MATTER, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THE COURT SPONSORS, OR?
A     THERE'S A PLACE IN THE--RESOLUTE SYSTEMS JUST SENDS A THING AND LAWYERS AGREE TO IT AND DON'T HAVE ANY COURT. I HAVE HEARD SIX OR EIGHT OF THEM LAST YEAR. I HELD TWO THIS YEAR.
Q     THE COMPANY THAT SPONSORS THAT IS CALLED RESOLUTE SYSTEMS?
A     YES.
Q     ARE YOU PAID BY THE HOUR, OR BY THE CASE, OR HOW ARE YOU---
A     YOU GET PAID SO MUCH FOR TRAVEL, SO MUCH FOR HOURS, SO MUCH FOR READING THE TRANSCRIPT. AND THEY ARE BINDING ARBITRATIONS AND YOU RENDER A DECISION. IT'S JUST LIKE TRYING A CASE WITHOUT A JURY.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     MOST OF THEM, WE SIT DOWN AND JUST SETTLE WITH THE LAWYERS - YOU'VE GOT FIVE PEOPLE HURT IN ONE WRECK, AND THEY HAVE FIVE TRIPS TO THE DOCTOR AND ALL FOR EACH ONE, AND WE TALK IT OVER AND GET THE CASE SETTLED. IT'S LIKE A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE.
Q     JUDGE, HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT WITH COURT ADMINISTRATION OR WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE AS TO WHETHER THERE'S ANY CONFLICT IN YOUR DOING THAT WORK AND STILL SERVING AS A RETIRED JUDGE?
A     NO. JUDGE LITTLEJOHN DOES IT PROBABLY MORE THAN I DO.
SENATOR SALEEBY: I MIGHT SAY THAT JUDGE LITTLEJOHN IS THE ONE THAT KIND OF GOT THIS THING STARTED IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
A     HE GOT IT STARTED. THE JUDGE STARTED ONE IN GEORGIA AND HE CALLED ME TO DO IT, AND I SAID I DON'T HAVE TIME TO COME DOWN THERE AND DO IT.
Q     HOW OFTEN DO YOU WORK WITH THIS ARBITRATION GROUP?
A     I HAVEN'T DONE BUT--WELL, I DID SIX LAST YEAR AND I HAVE DONE TWO THIS YEAR.
Q     JUDGE, WOULD THERE EVER BE AN OCCASION WHERE ONE OF THESE CASES WOULD WORK ITS WAY BACK INTO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM?
A     NO.
Q     THEY'RE ALL BINDING?
A     I WOULDN'T HANDLE IT IF IT WOULD. THEY ARE ENDED. THEY ARE ENDED. OF COURSE, I'M NOT HOLDING ANY CIVIL COURT. ALL THEY HAVE ME ON IS CRIMINAL COURT.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     I HAVE HAD TWO WEEKS CIVIL COURT SINCE AUGUST '86. LAST YEAR I HAD FOUR WEEKS A MONTH ON CRIMINAL COURT.
Q     AND, JUDGE, WHILE WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT OF HANDLING CRIMINAL COURT, THE LAST HEARING THAT YOU HAD BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE WAS A GOOD BIT DIFFERENT THAN THIS ONE. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF FOLKS HERE TO OPPOSE YOUR BEING REAFFIRMED, AND I NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THEY ARE NOT HERE TODAY. THEY HAD DONE AN EXTENSIVE STATISTICAL STUDY OF YOUR SENTENCING THE LAST TIME AROUND COMPARED TO OTHER JUDGES. HAVE YOU HEARD ANY MORE FROM THIS GROUP, OR HAVE THEY HAD ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON YOUR ACTIVITIES?
A     I THINK THEY FOUND OUT THAT I REALLY HAD MORE IN THE PENITENTIARY THAN ANYBODY ELSE. THEY WERE COUNTING DRUNK DRIVING AS A VIOLENT CRIME, AND OTHER THINGS.
Q     JUDGE, ONE QUESTION THAT I ASKED OF BOTH OF THE PRIOR NOMINEES WAS THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS EX PARTE COMMUNICATION; WOULD YOU JUST BRIEFLY TELL THIS COMMITTEE---
A     IF I HAVE ANYBODY CALL, I JUST SAY, "WELL, YOU WOULDN'T WANT THE OTHER SIDE TALKING TO ME, AND I CAN'T DISCUSS IT BEHIND THEIR BACK OR ANYTHING. YOU WOULDN'T WANT THEM TALKING BEHIND YOUR BACK," AND THAT GETS THEM OFF RIGHT QUICK. I LEARNED THAT FROM AN OLDER JUDGE.
Q     HOW ABOUT ORDERS, HOW DO YOU HANDLE ORDERS? I KNOW YOU HAVE TO RELY UPON---
A     WE DON'T HAVE MANY ORDERS IN CRIMINAL COURT.
Q     HOW ABOUT NOT ACCEPTING GIFTS--
A     I'LL TELL YOU, WHEN I RETIRED, I RETIRED IN '85 AND RAN FOR GOVERNOR VERY UNSUCCESSFULLY; I WAS TOO CONSERVATIVE. OF COURSE, I VOLUNTEERED THIS YEAR TO WORK WITHOUT PER DIEM; SO, I DID NOT STAY AT ANY LAWYERS' HOUSES. MY OLD ROOMMATE IN COLLEGE WORKED FOR PENDARVIS CHEVROLET, AND I STAYED WITH HIM IN AIKEN, AND I STAYED WITH MY DAUGHTER. I TELL YOU, WE USED TO HAVE 16 JUDGES; NOW WE'VE GOT 40. LAWYERS DON'T EVEN PAY JUDGES ANY ATTENTION NOW. THERE ARE SOME OF THEM AROUND, THEY DON'T GET ANY--THEY DON'T GET ANY SPECIAL ATTENTION. THEY USED TO HAVE A PARTY IN EACH CIRCUIT. CHARLESTON USED TO HAVE A BLACK TIE SUPPER FOR JUDGES IN THE FALL AND A BLACK TIE IN THE SPRING WITH THE JUDGES SWITCHED. THAT'S ALL GONE OVER THE DAM.
Q     HOW ABOUT THE LUNCH, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THAT? HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT?
A     AT SMITTY'S, I GENERALLY GO IN THE BACK AND COOK MY OWN.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     IT'S USUALLY BETTER THAT WAY, ISN'T IT?
A     YES, AND I'LL EAT AT THE JAIL.
Q     HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT? IF SOMEONE MAKES THAT OFFER TO YOU, HOW DO YOU POLITELY REFUSE THAT?
A     WELL, I JUST SAY YOU CAN'T BUY ME WITH ANY GROCERIES. I HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY HERE--USED TO, THEY WOULD ALWAYS WANT TO FIGHT TO TAKE THE JUDGE OUT. NOW THEY DON'T EVEN COME BY AND SPEAK TO THE JUDGE. YOU KNOW, THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR DOESN'T EVEN COME BY AND INTRODUCE HIMSELF NOW. THERE ARE SO MANY JUDGES, THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BE THERE AND THEY DON'T COME AROUND AT ALL.
Q     ONE OF YOUR LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION COMES FROM MR. HAGINS, PRESIDENT OF THE GREENVILLE COUNTY BAR. I WANT TO NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
A     YES.
Q     JUST A QUESTION ON YOUR REAL ESTATE SCHEDULE ON THE CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT YOU DID NOT INCLUDE A SCHEDULE OF YOUR REAL ESTATES HOLDINGS. IF YOU WOULD SOMETIME LATER AFTER THE HEARING UPDATE MRS. SATTERWHITE'S RECORDS BY LISTING YOUR REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS?
A     I THOUGHT I TOLD HER. I'LL TELL YOU, MRS. SATTERWHITE CALLED ME AND SAID IT HAD TO BE IN BY 12:00 O'CLOCK, AND I LOCKED THE DOOR AT AIKEN AND THE COURT REPORTER, WE FILLED IT OUT AND FAXED IT TO HER; SO, IF I LEFT OUT ANYTHING, IT WAS JUST AN ERROR, BUT I WILL SEND THAT TO HER.
Q     ONE LAST QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, ON ITEM NUMBER 31 IT SAYS, "HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SUED EITHER PERSONALLY OR PROFESSIONALLY; IF SO, GIVE DETAILS. AND YOU NOTE THAT THERE IS ONE PENDING LITIGATION FROM A PRISONER AGAINST YOU AND ANOTHER JUDGE IN FEDERAL COURT?
A     THAT IS THE ONE YOU MENTIONED.
Q     OKAY.
A     THERE'S BEEN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.
A     I REVOKED HIS PROBATION.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS BY ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: IF NOT, WE THANK YOU, JUDGE EPPES.
JUDGE EPPES: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
JUDGE EPPES: APPRECIATE IT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: FOR THE RECORD, SO THAT EVERYBODY WILL UNDERSTAND, WE WILL BE TAKING THESE QUESTIONS UNDER ADVISEMENT; SO, MR. SCOTT, IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE, ALL PARTIES WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE LATER.
JUDGE EPPES: SEE Y'ALL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YOU ARE WELCOME TO LEAVE, IF YOU WISH.
MR. SCOTT: ME, SIR?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, I JUST WANT TO LET--MR. SCOTT, I'M SORRY, AND ANYBODY ELSE THAT WILL BE TESTIFYING.
MR. SCOTT: ALL RIGHT, I WANT TO SINCERELY THANK YOU COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR LETTING ME SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
JUDGE WILLIAM MCLEOD. MR. MCLEOD, HOW ARE YOU DOING THIS MORNING?
JUDGE MCLEOD: FINE, THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: GOOD. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. MCLEOD, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOU, SIR. I NOTE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS ON DECEMBER THE 11TH, 1990. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
A     NONE THAT I RECALL.
Q     ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IT SHALL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     William J. McLeod
Home Address:                                         Business Address:
600 E. Jackson Street                             P. O. Box 1027
Dillon, SC 29536                                 Dillon, SC 29536

2.     He was born in Timmonsville, South Carolina on March 24, 1919. He is presently 74 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Sara Carmichael on April 24, 1948. He has two children: William J., Jr., age 42 (commercial cleaning business), and Martha M. Lee, age 40 (school teacher).

5.     Military Service:
April, 1942 - January, 1949 - U. S. Marine Corps - Captain - Honorable
January, 1949 - July, 1975 - S. C. National Guard - Serial #***-**-***** - Retired Brigadier General

6.     He attended Furman University, 1936-1939, left to enter law school; and the University of South Carolina, 1939-1942, LLB.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Before retiring, he attended all JCLEs for Family Court and some for Circuit Court. Since retirement, he has attended only one or two.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1946-1978 - private practice - Dillon, South Carolina - general practice

20.     Judicial Office:
City Recorder - Dillon, South Carolina - 1953-1961 - elected by City Council - jurisdiction $100.00 - 30 days
Family Court Judge - 1978 (July 1) - July 1, 1989 - retired

21.     Five (5) of the Most Significant Orders or Opinions You Have Written:
(a)     Twenty-Ninth Avenue Corporation v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., Court of Appeals Opinion No. 1970, filed March 15, 1993.
(b)     Bryan L. Bellamy v. M. J. Goff and Mona Goff, Court of Appeals Opinion No. 93-UP-064, filed March 10, 1993.
(c)     Ruby E. Edens, Kipling E. Edens, et al. v. Ira A. Edens, Court of Appeals Opinion No. 93-UP-031, filed February 4, 1993.
(d)     Bertha M. Robinson v. State of South Carolina, Supreme Court Opinion No. 23642, filed April 27, 1992.
(e)     Charles Underwood v. State of South Carolina, Supreme Court Opinion No. 23750, filed December 7, 1992.

22.     Public Office:
Dillon County Board of Education, 1961-1963, appointed; South Carolina House of Representatives, 1966-1978, elected

24.     Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Farming part-time, 1957-1966

33.     His health is good. His last physical was March 18, 1993, by Dr. Phil Wallace, 203 E. Monroe Street, Dillon, South Carolina 29536.

36.     He is currently taking medication for high blood pressure prescribed by Dr. Phil Wallace, 203 E. Monroe Street, Dillon, South Carolina 29536.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Dillon County Bar Association, past President; South Carolina Bar Association; Family Court Judges Council, President 1981-1982; American Judicature Society; National Council Juvenile and Family Court Judges

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Dillon Lions Club, inactive; St. Eugene Community Hospital Advisory Board; Main Street United Methodist Church; Dillon Cotillion Club; VFW; American Legion

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Paul Craven, Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 1029, Dillon, SC 29536
(b)     Timothy M. Ammons, Esquire
Shine and Ammons
205 West Hampton Street, Dillon, SC 29536
(c)     John C. Lindsay, Jr., Esquire
Lindsay and Lindsay
104 Market Street, P. O. Drawer 250, Bennettsville, SC 29512
(d)     J. David Watson, Esquire
200 West Hampton Street, P. O. Drawer 969, Dillon, SC 29536
(e)     Cyrus T. Sloan, III, Esquire
McLendon and Sloan
111 Witcover Street, P. O. Box 1096, Marion, SC 29571
Q     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. JUDICIAL STANDARDS HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. REPORTS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF DILLON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. I NOTED YOU REPORT THAT YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD. AND I NOTE THAT NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE, AND NO WITNESSES THAT WE ARE AWARE OF ARE PRESENT TO TESTIFY. SO WITH THAT, I ASK MR. COUICK IF HE HAS GOT ANY QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     GOOD MORNING, JUDGE MCLEOD.
A     GOOD MORNING.
Q     HOW ARE YOU DOING?
A     FINE.
Q     AS I SAID EARLIER, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME OR NEED ANYTHING, LET ME KNOW.
A     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     DO YOU CONTINUE TO ENJOY SITTING ON THE BENCH, JUDGE?
A     OCCASIONALLY.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     AND HOW OFTEN DO YOU SIT?
A     OVER THE LAST YEAR, ABOUT ONE WEEK A MONTH.
Q     AND WHEN YOU SIT, WHAT TYPES OF CASES DID YOU GENERALLY HEAR?
A     FAMILY COURT FOR THE LAST YEAR, OR YEAR-AND-A-HALF.
Q     YOU INDICATE ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST THAT YOU RECEIVE RETIREMENT AS A RETIRED JUDGE FOR APPROXIMATELY $56,000 A YEAR, THAT YOU RECEIVE FROM THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM LEGISLATIVE ABOUT 11,000. YOU DO NOT INDICATE ANY OTHER INCOME FROM THE GOVERNMENT AS ACTING AS A RETIRED JUDGE. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT---
A     YES, I THINK LAST YEAR WAS ABOUT $2400, AND I'M SORRY I FORGOT TO PUT IT ON THERE. AND A YEAR--A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE THAT WHEN I WAS WORKING ABOUT FULL-TIME, IT WAS MORE; BUT LAST YEAR IT WAS ABOUT $2400, I BELIEVE, THAT I PAID TAXES ON.
Q     YES, SIR. JUDGE, YOU HEARD MY QUESTIONS EARLIER ABOUT CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR JUDGES; NOW ON YOUR FORM YOU INDICATE THAT SINCE RETIREMENT YOU HAVE ATTENDED ONLY ONE OR TWO?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     I UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMIC REASONS WHY IT'S DIFFICULT---
A     IT'S NOT ECONOMIC. I JUST HAVEN'T CARED TOO MUCH ABOUT GOING TO SOME OF THEM, I THINK.
Q     TELL ME, DO YOU SEE WHY IT MAY BE IMPORTANT FOR A RETIRED JUDGE TO STAY CURRENT?
A     I DO, YES.
Q     JUDGE, YOU ALSO HEARD MY QUESTIONS EARLIER ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS; TELL ME HOW YOU HANDLE THAT IN YOUR COURTROOM.
A     I TRY TO TELL THE LAWYERS BEFORE THEY LEAVE AFTER I HEAR A CASE WHAT THE DECISION IS AND ASK ONE OF THEM TO PREPARE THE ORDER. IF YOU TAKE IT--IF I TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT, I, IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO, HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WRITE THEM OR CALL THEM BOTH AND TELL THEM. IF I'M AT SOMEBODY'S COURTHOUSE, I GET ONE OF THE COURT PERSONNEL TO CALL WHERE I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE I'D RATHER NOT TALK TO THEM, BUT I TRY TO AVOID TALKING TO ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. I PROBABLY FAIL TO DO THAT SOMETIMES.
Q     JUDGE, YOU ALSO HEARD MY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GIFTS AND SOCIAL HOSPITALITY. COULD YOU TELL THE COMMITTEE YOUR APPROACH TO HANDLING THAT STICKY PROBLEM?
A     I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT SINCE I HEARD YOU ASK THE OTHERS. I WAS TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT I HAD GOTTEN. MY FAMILY IS--WITH ANOTHER LAWYER AT HOME, WE HAVE EXCHANGED CHRISTMAS GIFTS FOR YEARS AND YEARS. I THINK MAYBE HE GIVES ME A HAM AND I GIVE HIM FRUIT, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT. AS TO THE LUNCH, I HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY INVITE ME TO LUNCH FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS. I THINK THE LAST ONE WAS TWO LAWYERS HERE IN COLUMBIA, AND THEY TALKED SO POORMOUTH THAT I ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIRS.

(LAUGHTER.)

A     THEY WERE ALSO OLD FRIENDS FROM HOME AND SO I JUST--THEY HAD MOVED UP THIS WAY. BEFORE THE ETHICS THING, I USED TO GET A GIFT FROM SENATOR SALEEBY'S FIRM.
SENATOR SALEEBY: I STOPPED IT.
A     I THINK IT WAS PECANS MOSTLY, BUT--(PAUSE)---
SENATOR SALEEBY: IT WAS PECANS, BUT I STOPPED THAT.
A     YES, HE STOPPED THAT.

(LAUGHTER.)

A     SO, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEM REALLY, COUNSELOR.
Q     YES, SIR. AND, JUDGE, FINALLY ONE LAST QUESTION, YOU INDICATE IN THE ADDENDUM THAT YOU FILED ON APRIL 5TH, 1993--AND I BELIEVE THIS IS IN THE MEMBERS' BOOKS, IS THAT RIGHT, MRS. SATTERWHITE?
MRS. SATTERWHITE: YES.
Q     --THAT YOU HAD RECOLLECTED AFTER YOU FILED THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT A COMPLAINT HAD BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST YOU WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS, AND I'M--THIS IS A HANDWRITTEN NOTE, AND I DID HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY READING IT. IS IT MR. EARL NASH?
A     I THINK THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q     COULD YOU BRIEFLY TELL THE COMMITTEE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT?
A     DID YOU READ HIS PLEADINGS, SIR?
Q     TRIED TO, YES, SIR.
A     WELL, I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. I REALLY--I DON'T KNOW, WHEN I SHOWED UP IN ANDERSON THAT MORNING AND WENT BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHAT COURTROOM I WAS TO USE, SHE PRESENTED ME WITH A PAPER SHE SAID--AND IT TURNED OUT THAT MR. NASH HAD DELIVERED IT TO HER THAT MORNING TO SERVE IT ON ME; IT SAID TITLES OF NOBILITY ARE FORBIDDEN. SO I SAID, SO WHAT? BUT ANYWAY, IT KIND OF DETERIORATED AFTER THAT. WE HAD THE HEARING. HE HAD THE HABIT OF FILING LIENS, AND I THINK HE HAD SENT YOU--I INCLUDED SOME HE HAD SENT ME THAT INDICATED THAT HE WANTED TO FILE THOSE AGAINST ME.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     HE WAS FILING THEM AND THE CLERK WAS ACCEPTING THEM, AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK AND ONE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL THEY TRIED TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY; SO, HE--TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, HE WAS BEFORE ME WHERE WE TRIED TO PUT A STOP AND GET THOSE LIENS CLEARED OFF THE RECORD. HE WASN'T SERVING ANYBODY. HE WAS REPRESENTING HIMSELF. I DON'T KNOW, HE HAS APPEALED; I THINK HE HAS BEEN IN THE PENITENTIARY SINCE THEN. I FOUND MYSELF IN GOOD COMPANY. I THINK ALL THE JUDGES IN ANDERSON HAD BEEN SUED; AND I BELIEVE JUDGE EPPES WAS ONE OF THEM ON THERE. I NEVER DID MAKE ANY SENSE OUT OF THE REST OF IT.
Q     OKAY.
A     I TOLD HIM, TRYING TO EASE THE SITUATION ONE TIME, THAT IF I HAD KNOWN HE WAS GOING TO BE THERE THAT DAY, I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT HE DIDN'T APPRECIATE MY HUMOR.
Q     THERE'S BEEN NO NEGATIVE RESOLUTION OF THAT BY THE BOARD OF ANY SORT, HAS THERE?
A     NO, SIR, AND I HAD FORGOTTEN THAT HE HAD WRITTEN THE COMMISSION OVER THERE UNTIL I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THAT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR JUDGE MCLEOD.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING.
JUDGE MCLEOD: I APPRECIATE IT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
JUDGE MCLEOD: Y'ALL HAVE A GOOD DAY.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: JUDGE WILLIE T. SMITH. GOOD MORNING, JUDGE.
JUDGE SMITH: GOOD MORNING, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IF YOU WOULD, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND FOR ME.

THE HONORABLE WILLIE T. SMITH, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     I NOTE THAT YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS ON OCTOBER THE 16TH, 1990. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES ANYTHING NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     I DON'T THINK SO.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IT WILL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Willie T. Smith, Jr.
Home Address:                                             Business Address:
601 Jacobs Road                                         P. O. Box 757

Greenville, SC 29605                             Greenville, SC 29602

2.     He was born in Sumter, South Carolina on January 17, 1920. He is presently 73 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Anna Marie Clark on June 9, 1955. He has one child: Willie T., III, age 37 (sports writer, THE GREENVILLE NEWS).

5.     Military Service: He served in the Army of the United States during World War II from February, 1942 - December, 1945, in North Africa, Mediterranean and Pacific Theaters of Operation; U. S. Air Force during the Korean Conflict, May, 1949 - November, 1952, Honorable Discharge, Rank: Technician 4th Class, Serial No. 34 250 614.
6.     He attended Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina, September, 1936 - February, 1939; September, 1941 - February, 1942 (drafted into Army). He attended Johnson C. Smith University, Charlotte, North Carolina, September, 1946 - August, 1947, AB Degree; and the School of Law, South Carolina State College, Orangeburg, South Carolina, September, 1947 - February, 1949 and February, 1953 - May, 1954, LLB now JD.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has met and exceeded all requirements of the Supreme Court for Judicial Continuing Legal Education. He reads and analyzes all decisions of Appellate Courts since retirement.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
General Practice of Law and Cooperating Attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, 1954-1967; Assistant Director Legal Services of Greenville County, 1967-1973; Executive Director of Legal Services, 1973-1977; Family Court Judge, 1977 - December, 1992

20.     Judicial Office:
July, 1977 - December, 1992; Family Court Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; State of South Carolina; elected unanimously by the General Assembly of the State

21.     Five (5) of the Most Significant Orders or Opinions You Have Written:
(a)     Linda Klitzner Bivens v. Henry Frank Bivens, File #82-DR-23-3423; not reported
(b)     S. C. Department of Social Services v. The Father and Mother, filed February 29, 1988, Opinion No. 1100, Court of Appeals
(c)     Nicholas J. Pappas, Jr. v. Angela M. C. Pappas, filed November 13, 1989, Opinion #1416, Court of Appeals
(d)     John W. Panhorst, Jr. v. Barbara P. Panhorst, filed February 20, 1990, Opinion #1464, Court of Appeals
(e)     John D. Ellenburg v. Alice F. Ellenburg, filed April 19, 1990, Memorandum Opinion No. 90-MO-071, Court of Appeals

22.     Public Office:
Board of Trustees School District of Greenville County, 1973-1976, elected by the Board of Trustees, served 3 years
23.     Unsuccessful Candidate:
He ran at-large for the School Board of Greenville County, 1971

31.     Sued:
Melvin Julian Robinson v. State of South Carolina, Travis Medlock, Willie T. Smith, Jr., Nancy Rentz, CA No. 3:90-143-13K. The Plaintiff brought this suit because he was held in contempt and sentenced to jail on a Rule presented by the Anderson Clerk of Court for non-payment of child support. This case was dismissed by Order of U. S. District Judge, G. Ross Anderson, Jr., dated August 24, 1990.

33.     His health is good. His last physical in November of 1992, by Dr. Desmond Smith, 45 Creekview Court, Greenville, South Carolina.

34.     Hospitalized: He had surgery for spinal stenosis in March and November of 1992.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association; South Carolina Bar; Judicial Council of National Bar Association; Greenville County Bar

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Rotary Club of Greenville; American Legion Post 231; Phi Alpha Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity; Mason and Shriner; Mattoon United Presbyterian Church, elder; Delta Beta Boule; Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity, Inc.

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     H. Ray Davis
The First Savings Bank

301 College Street, P. O. Box 408

Greenville, SC 29601-2095
(b)     Julius B. Aiken, Esquire
Aiken Building, 403 Pettigru Street

Greenville, South Carolina 29601
(c)     Richard N. Tapp, Esquire
301 College Street, Suite 607

Greenville, SC 29601
(d)     James C. Parham, Jr., Esquire
Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, P.A.
44 East Camperdown Way, P. O. Box 728

Greenville, SC 29602
(e)     Don R. Moorhead, Esquire
Christian, Moorhead & Davis
1007 East Washington Street, P. O. Box 332

Greenville, SC 29602

Q     AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE REPORT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. REPORTS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW THERE ARE NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU. THERE IS ONE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE. SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS MADE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS IN 1990. NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY US, AND NO WITNESSES, WE ARE INFORMED, ARE HERE TO TESTIFY. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD.
A     YES.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WITH THAT, IF MR. COUICK HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
A     ALL RIGHT.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     GOOD MORNING, JUDGE.
A     HOW ARE YOU DOING?
Q     FINE. IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING I SAY, PLEASE ASK ME TO SPEAK UP, AND I'LL BE GLAD TO.
A     ALL RIGHT.
Q     IF WE COULD PROVIDE JUDGE SMITH WITH A COPY OF HIS PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE. DO WE HAVE AN EXTRA COPY OF HIS PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE? (DOCUMENT HANDED TO JUDGE SMITH.)
Q     JUDGE, ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS FORM, WHICH YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FILE WITH THIS COMMITTEE AS A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ITEM 13 THERE ASKS THAT YOU DISCLOSE ALL INCOME, FEES, PAYMENTS, OR BENEFITS PAID TO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY BY STATE OR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA, IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE AND TYPE OF THAT INCOME AND BENEFITS. YOU INDICATE ON THE FORM THAT IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE. I ASK YOU, IS THERE ANY SALARY THAT YOU RECEIVE OR ANY RETIREMENT INCOME YOU RECEIVE FROM THE STATE THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE THIS FORM TO INCLUDE THAT?
A     I RECEIVE A RETIREMENT, YES.
Q     DO YOU RECALL---
A     NOT APPLICABLE IS DOWN THERE.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     BUT I DON'T RECEIVE (INAUDIBLE TO REPORTER)
Q     JUDGE, IF YOU COULD SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT, OUR COURT REPORTER IS HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING.
A     ALL RIGHT.
Q     YOU INDICATE YOU DO RECEIVE RETIREMENT INCOME.
A     I RECEIVE RETIREMENT INCOME.
Q     IN THE LAST CALENDAR YEAR, DO YOU KNOW THE ROUGH AMOUNT OF THAT? HOW MUCH THAT TOTALED?
A     I JUST RETIRED LAST YEAR. I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY --(PAUSE)--BETWEEN 55 AND $60,000.
Q     YES, SIR. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY INCOME OR SALARY FROM THE STATE FOR HOLDING COURT AS A RETIRED JUDGE?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     JUDGE, SINCE YOUR RETIREMENT, HAVE YOU ATTENDED ANY C.L.E. PROGRAMS HELD BY THE STATE?
A     NOT SINCE I RETIRED.
Q     WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD THAT? YOU HEARD ME ASK THE OTHER JUDGES THE QUESTION ABOUT J.C.L.E.; WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS THAT?
A     OH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM. I LIKE J.C.L.E. I THINK WE OUGHT TO GET SOME TRAVEL FOR IT.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     I DON'T MIND PAYING THE SMALL FEE, THE $35, BUT I THINK THE STATE SHOULD GIVE YOU TRAVEL.
Q     SO IF IT'S---
A     I'M HOLDING COURT TO HELP COURT ADMINISTRATION.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     AND I SEE THE NEED OF IT, BUT I CERTAINLY THINK THAT IF I'M GOING THAT I SHOULD GET THE TRAVEL OR SOMETHING OUT OF IT.
Q     HAVE YOU HELD ANY RETIRED--AS A RETIRED JUDGE, HAVE YOU HELD ANY COURT SO FAR THIS YEAR?
A     NO, NOT THIS YEAR. LAST YEAR.
Q     HOW MUCH---
A     I HAD SURGERY IN NOVEMBER, AND I'M JUST GETTING OVER IT.
Q     WAS THAT FOR SPINAL STENOSIS, JUDGE?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     COULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT CONDITION FOR THE---
A     IT'S A CONDITION WHERE THE DISC KIND OF FLATTENS AND PUSHES OUT AGAINST THE NERVE AND IT CAUSED CONSIDERABLE PAIN IN MY LEG. THAT'S ALL. OTHER THAN THAT, I WAS ALL RIGHT EXCEPT FOR THE PAIN.
Q     WOULD YOU EVER BE UNDER MEDICATION FOR THAT CONDITION?
A     NO.
Q     SO YOU WOULDN'T BE UNDER ANY TYPE OF PAIN MEDICATION AND BE HOLDING COURT---
A     NO.
Q     ---WHILE YOU HAD IT?
A     NO.
Q     ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, I GUESS I SHOULD ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.
A     WELL, I TRY NOT TO DO IT. I TRY TO HAVE BOTH LAWYERS PRESENT WHEN I GIVE AN ORDER. IF IT'S UNDER ADVISEMENT, I HAVE ALWAYS SENT FOR BOTH OF THEM--(INAUDIBLE TO REPORTER)--AND HAVE THEM ALL SITTING THERE WHEN I GIVE MY ORDER. AND IF ONE OF THE LAWYERS WANTS TO PREPARE IT, I ASK HIM TO PASS IT BY THE OTHER ONE BEFORE IT GETS TO ME. I DON'T DO ANY EX PARTE; I TALK TO EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME, OR HAVE MY SECRETARY TALK TO THEM.
Q     HOW ABOUT THE AREA OF GIFTS OR SOCIAL HOSPITALITY, JUDGE, HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT?
A     OH, YOU KNOW, THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS SINCE THEY'VE BEEN STRICT, I DON'T ACCEPT ANY GIFTS AT ALL. AND EVEN WHEN I GO TO LUNCH WITH LAWYERS, I INSIST ON PAYING FOR MY OWN.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING.
JUDGE SMITH: OKAY.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THAT COMPLETED, ACCORDING TO MY NOTES, ALL THE RETIRED JUDGES; AND BEFORE WE START ON THE NEXT ONE, WOULD Y'ALL LIKE TO TAKE A BREAK?
JUDGE SMITH: DO YOU WANT THIS BACK?
MR. COUICK: YES, SIR, IF YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE IT WITH THE YOUNG LADY OVER HERE, JUDGE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WE'LL TAKE A FIFTEEN MINUTE BREAK. BE BACK HERE THEN AT 11:15.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE WILL BE SOMEBODY HERE IN THE ROOM TO WATCH EVERYBODY'S THINGS IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE THEM.

(OFF THE RECORD FROM 11:04 P.M. UNTIL 11:20 P.M.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: I WILL RECONVENE THE HEARING AT THIS TIME; AND I SEE WE HAVE SENATOR POPE WITH US. MR. POPE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND GIVE US ANY OPENING REMARKS REGARDING YOUR PROCESS.
SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW MEMBERS, I CERTAINLY ENJOYED MY SERVICE ON THE JOINT JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE DURING THE YEARS I WAS IN THE SENATE, AND APPRECIATE WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE INTERIM PERIOD HERE IN WORKING OUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BAR COMMITTEE. I'M HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE BAR. THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THE BAR HAD WANTED TO HAVE INPUT IN THE PAST YEARS, AND AS I RECALL IT, THE LEGISLATURE ALWAYS SAID, WELL, THERE'S NOTHING PROHIBITING YOUR INPUT; SO, THEY COMMENCED THIS PROCESS. IT'S MODELED AFTER THE A.B.A. PROCESS WITH REGARD TO FEDERAL JUDGES, WHICH ARE, OF COURSE, APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT. THE PROCEDURES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT ONLY NOMINATES ONE PERSON FOR A FEDERAL JUDGESHIP AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE PASSES ON THAT PERSON'S QUALIFICATIONS AND VOTES WHETHER TO CONFIRM HIM OR NOT, BUT THERE ARE SIMILARITIES IN ANY EVENT. THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE HAS A SET OF RULES THAT WERE FORMULATED, NOT BY US, BUT BY THE BAR PRIOR TO US BEGINNING OUR WORK. WE BEGAN OUR WORK SOMETIME LAST FALL. AND FOR Y'ALL'S INFORMATION, SO YOU'LL HOPEFULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE AREN'T, IN MY VIEW, ANY BIASES ON THIS COMMITTEE EITHER TOWARD THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, CIVIL DEFENSE, CIVIL PLAINTIFF WORK, OR WHATEVER, THIS COMMITTEE IS COMPOSED OF A PRETTY GOOD CROSS SECTION, I BELIEVE. IF YOU LOOK AT CHARLESTON, THERE'S MARK ROSEN WHO HAS BEEN IN THE BAR FOR 40 YEARS OR SO; IN LEXINGTON SOLICITOR MYERS; ALSO IN CHARLESTON, WADE LOGAN, WHO PRIMARILY REPRESENTS DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL CASES; IN THE UPSTATE, YOU'VE GOT MIKE GLENN IN ANDERSON, WHO IS IN A VERY SMALL FIRM. YOU HAVE GOT--ALSO, IN THE UPSTATE YOU'VE GOT DOUG PATRICK, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRIAL LAWYERS. IN ADDITION, OF COURSE, THERE ARE SEVERAL WOMEN ON THE COMMITTEE. AND I.S. LEVY JOHNSON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BAR, IS VERY ACTIVE ON THE COMMITTEE. HOWARD KING FROM SUMTER IS A FORMER BAR PRESIDENT WHO IS ON THERE. GWEN FULLER WHO IS APPOINTED AS THE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY IS ON THE COMMITTEE. BEVERLY CARROLL, WHO IS A VERY ACTIVE TRIAL LAWYER IN ROCK HILL; BARBARA IRWIN FROM MYRTLE BEACH; AND BETSY GRAY FROM COLUMBIA, WHO IS A VERY ACTIVE CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER. SO WE'VE GOT, I THINK, A BALANCED COMMITTEE THAT HAS WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY. WE HAVE HAD FOUR OR FIVE MEETINGS AND THE ATTENDANCE HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AT ALL OF THEM. WE HAVE A SERIES OF RULES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, BUT I HAVE GOT A SET FOR EVERYBODY HERE, IF ONE OF THE CLERKS, PAGES OR WHATEVER, WANTS TO PASS THEM OUT.

THE PROCEDURE WE FOLLOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS BASICALLY IS TO COME TO SOME RATING OF JUDICIAL CANDIDATES. OUR MISSION IS TO FOLLOW THE--YOUR COMMITTEE, TO TRACK IT. IN OTHER WORDS, UNTIL THERE IS A VACANCY ANNOUNCED FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE AND UNTIL THERE ARE APPLICANTS FOR THAT VACANCY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY WORK TO DO. WE DON'T GO OUT AND SEEK TO DO ANY WORK UNTIL THERE ARE VACANCIES AND APPLICANTS FOR THOSE VACANCIES. SO THIS YEAR, BECAUSE THIS COMMITTEE STARTED A LITTLE LATE, WE DIDN'T BEGIN OUR WORK AS FAR AS ACTUAL SCREENING, OR INVESTIGATING, RATHER, UNTIL THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCED VACANCY FOR THE COURTS THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY ABOUT. AS SOON AS THOSE CANDIDACIES WERE ANNOUNCED, THE FIRST STEP THAT WE UNDERTOOK UNDER THESE RULES WAS TO--WE GOT THE CANDIDATES TO SUBMIT THE NAMES OF PEOPLE WHO--THE RULES PROVIDED THAT WE WERE GOING TO SEND QUESTIONNAIRES TO THESE PEOPLE; WE DETERMINED BEFORE WE EVEN STARTED THAT WAS NOT PRACTICAL, THAT THE POINT OF THIS, SIMILAR TO THE A.B.A., IS NOT TO HAVE--NOT TO COMMIT PEOPLE TO WRITING THINGS DOWN ABOUT JUDICIAL CANDIDATES, BUT TELLING HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT A PERSON, WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR WHETHER IT'S NOT GOOD, AND WE FELT LIKE A QUESTIONNAIRE IS NOT GOING TO LEAD TO MEANINGFUL INFORMATION BECAUSE PEOPLE MAY BE RELUCTANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT THEY WOULD TELL YOU. SO, WE TOOK THIS LIST OF NAMES FROM THE DIFFERENT CANDIDATES AND WE PROCEEDED TO CONTACT MOST, IF NOT ALL, I CAN'T REPRESENT THAT WE CONTACTED 100 PERCENT, BUT CERTAINLY 95 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE NAMES WERE SUBMITTED.

THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ALSO ASKED IN THE COMMUNITY OF THAT PERSON'S RESIDENCE FOR OTHER POSSIBLE LIKELY CONTACTS THAT COULD SHED INFORMATION ABOUT A PERSON. AND WE ARE LOOKING AT, OF COURSE, THE SAME CRITERIA; IN FACT, IN MY FILE IS YOUR BOOK. EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAS THIS BOOK BECAUSE IT DOES SET OUT SOME VERY HELPFUL INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO WHAT CRITERIA YOU WANT TO LOOK AT: TEMPERAMENT, INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, CAPACITY FOR HARD WORK, AND INTEGRITY. OF COURSE, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ALWAYS COME INTO YOUR MIND, BUT WE FOLLOWED THESE GUIDELINES IN OUR INVESTIGATION BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE VERY HELPFUL GUIDELINES. WE UNDERTOOK TO CONTACT THESE PEOPLE, AND THEY WERE NOT ALL LAWYERS THAT WE CONTACTED. IT WAS HEAVILY LAWYERS BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH JUDICIAL CANDIDATES WHO ARE LAWYERS, AND, SO, WE FEEL THAT CERTAINLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN AGAINST THEM IN COURT, OR WITH THEM IN COURT, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, WOULD HAVE PROBABLY MORE INFORMATION THAN ANYONE ELSE, BUT WE DID NOT RESTRICT OUR INFORMATION TO LAWYERS. WE SOUGHT IT FROM WHEREVER WE COULD FIND IT. A LOT OF MINISTERS WERE CONTACTED. IN ADDITION TO RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, WE WOULD CONTACT NEIGHBORS AND WHATNOT, PERSONAL CONTACTS, PEOPLE THAT HAD--EVEN CLIENTS IN SOME CASES OF THESE PEOPLE THAT WERE CANDIDATES. AND THE HALLMARK OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING IS CONFIDENTIALITY. WE FEEL LIKE IF IT'S NOT CONFIDENTIAL, THE INFORMATION WILL NOT COME FORWARD. AND I KNOW WHEN I WAS ON THIS COMMITTEE IN TIMES PAST WE HAD CONTACTS, OR COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD CONTACTS, FROM FOLKS THAT KNEW A CANDIDATE AND SAID THINGS THAT SAID, "I DON'T FIND THAT PERSON QUALIFIED," AND WE WOULD ALWAYS SAY, "IF YOU DON'T COME FORWARD, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER THIS IS ANYTHING; WE ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING YOUR OPINION OF THIS CANDIDATE UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO COME TO THIS COMMITTEE AND TALK ABOUT IT." WE FEEL LIKE OUR PROCEDURE PROVIDES CONFIDENTIALITY; IT ALLOWS US TO TALK TO NUMBERS OF PEOPLE. OUR OPINION IS BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF ALL THE PEOPLE WE CONTACT. IT IS AN ONGOING TYPE OF PROCESS.

NOW THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WE HAVE BEEN IN OPERATION, AND A COUPLE OF THINGS WERE IDENTIFIED AS PROBLEMS DURING THIS LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. ONE OF THEM WAS THAT THE RATING SYSTEM PROVIDED FOR FOUR RATINGS: NOT QUALIFIED, QUALIFIED, WELL QUALIFIED, AND EXCEPTIONALLY WELL QUALIFIED. WE FELT THAT THE FOURTH RATING, THAT HIGH CATEGORY, WAS GOING TO BE ALMOST TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, AND VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO APPLY, AND I THINK WE TALKED TO SOME MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE WHO AGREED THAT IT COULD CREATE SOME REAL PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF UNEVEN APPLICATION; SO, WE ASKED THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS THAT CREATED OUR RULES TO DISREGARD--TO LET US GO WITH THREE RATINGS, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE, AND AMENDED OUR RULES WITH THEIR ACTION TO ALLOW FOR THREE RATINGS. THE OTHER THING WAS, CONSISTENT WITH THE A.B.A.'S OPERATION, OUR RULE PROVIDED THAT WE ONLY GIVE A RATING. WELL, WE WANTED TO HELP THE COMMITTEE IN ITS CONCERN; SO, WE AMENDED OUR RULES TO PROVIDE THAT I WOULD COME BEFORE YOU IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO PROVIDE REASONS FOR RATINGS, PROVIDED THAT CONFIDENTIALITY HAS TO BE MAINTAINED. OF COURSE, THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ANYWAY.

THAT IS IT IN A NUTSHELL. THE RULES ARE FAIRLY SPECIFIC. THIS COMMITTEE HAS PRETTY DILIGENTLY UNDERTAKEN TO DO ITS WORK, WHICH WE HAVE CERTAINLY TRIED TO BE FAIR TO EACH AND EVERY CANDIDATE. I WOULD, MR. CHAIRMAN, LIKE TO AT SOME POINT, JUST TO MENTION THIS WHILE WE ARE HERE, IS THAT WHEN THIS FIRST YEAR OF OUR OPERATION IS OVER, I WOULD LOVE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK WITH YOU, OR YOUR COMMITTEE, OR YOUR DESIGNEE, OR WHOEVER, ABOUT THE WORKINGS OF THIS FIRST YEAR AND ABOUT THE FUTURE OPERATIONS AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS BAR COMMITTEE AND THE JOINT SCREENING COMMITTEE BECAUSE I THINK, OBVIOUSLY, EVERYTHING CAN BE IMPROVED AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THE BEST JOB WE POSSIBLY CAN TO RATE JUDICIAL CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE. I WILL BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I BELIEVE MR. COUICK HAS A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THE REPORT THAT YOU JUST MADE, SENATOR POPE; I WOULD ASK THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER HAVING THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR RULES OF PROCEDURE APPENDED TO THE RECORD TODAY FOR THE INTEREST OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO READ, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH WHICH IS SOME VERBIAGE ABOUT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMITTEE, AND ON THE LAST PAGE THERE'S A RESOLUTION; PERHAPS THOSE TWO PARTS COULD BE STRICKEN, BUT HAVE THAT APPENDED TO TODAY'S RECORD.
SENATOR MOORE: SO MOVED.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THE SENATOR FROM AIKEN HAS SO MOVED. DO I HEAR A SECOND?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: SECOND.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THERE HAS BEEN A SECOND. THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

(AYE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THOSE OPPOSED BY SAYING NAY.

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: SO DONE.

(SOUTH CAROLINA BAR COMMITTEE RULES)

MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, IN ADDITION, YOUR INQUIRY, SENATOR, DID IT INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF INQUIRY INTO WHETHER THERE WERE CONFLICTS THAT JUDGES MIGHT---
SENATOR POPE: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?
MR. COUICK: YES, SIR.
SENATOR POPE: WELL, THE INQUIRY--I WON'T SAY IT FOCUSED ON THAT. WE ARE AWARE--OF COURSE, I'M AWARE SINCE I WAS A FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE, THAT YOU GET A FINANCIAL STATEMENT FROM THE CANDIDATES. THIS YEAR WE DID NOT ASK FOR THAT; SO, A CONFLICTS CHECK WOULD BE A LITTLE DIFFICULT WITHOUT THAT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE DID NOT ASK CANDIDATES WHAT STOCKS THEY OWN SO THAT WE COULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN A CONFLICT THERE. WE DID ASK WHEN WE TALKED TO CONFIDENTIAL PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, WHETHER A PERSON HAD EVER-- PARTICULARLY SITTING JUDGES, WHETHER THEY HAD EVER, YOU KNOW, HANDLED A CASE WHERE THERE WAS A CONFLICT THEY WERE AWARE OF, IN ADDITION TO GENERAL QUESTIONS OF TEMPERAMENT. WE DIDN'T FOCUS ON THAT, NO.
MR. COUICK: AND, ALSO, SENATOR, DID YOU TAKE ANY EMPIRICAL APPROACH IN TERMS OF DETERMINING IF A JUDGE HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS OR HAD ANY IMPROPER RELATIONSHIPS WITH LITIGANTS IN HIS COURTROOM, PER SE; LIKE IF A JUDGE WERE APPROACHING PEOPLE THAT WERE LAWYERS IN HIS COURTROOM AND ASKING THEM TO WRITE LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS SCREENING PROCESS, OR--I KNOW THAT YOU APPROACH THIS GENERALLY WITH YOUR INTERVIEW COMMITTEE, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS DID YOU GO BEYOND THE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT COURTHOUSE RECORDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THERE WERE ANY IMPROPRIETIES BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND THE ATTORNEYS APPEARING IN HIS COURTROOM?
SENATOR POPE: NOT OTHER THAN GENERAL INQUIRY, NO.
MR. COUICK: AND FINALLY, IN TERMS, OF MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE ETHICS AND CANNONS, DID YOU--OTHER THAN YOUR INTERVIEWS, DID YOU DO ANY OTHER SEPARATE QUESTIONING OR SURVEY OF THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES, AND THEN SEEK TO FIND OUT IF WHETHER THEIR ANSWERS WERE TRUE OR NOT IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ETHICAL CANNONS FOR JUDGES? - I THINK I HEARD YOU MENTION THAT YOU DID NOT DO ANY SEPARATE WRITTEN SURVEY; IS THAT RIGHT?
SENATOR POPE: WE DIDN'T DO A WRITTEN SURVEY. WE AT THIS POINT FELT THAT A WRITTEN SURVEY WOULD NOT BE USEFUL BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO BE CANDID. EITHER THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FILL THEM IN, OR THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE CANDID.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, MY PURPOSE OF ASKING QUESTIONS IS NOT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE ANY FAILINGS IN THE BAR PROCESS; IT'S JUST THAT THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY THIS COMMITTEE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT; AND, SO, IF THIS COMMITTEE WERE TO MAKE A DIFFERENT DETERMINATION, IT MAY VERY WELL BE BASED UPON INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE, AND NOT AVAILABLE TO THE BAR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, SIR, ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: JUST ONE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: ARE THE APPLICANTS, IF YOU WILL, OR THE CANDIDATES, GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THOSE RESPONSES THAT YOU RECEIVE CONFIDENTIALLY FROM WHATEVER, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE?
SENATOR POPE: YES. THE PROCESS---
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: DO THEY KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE?
SENATOR POPE: THE PROCESS TODAY IS THAT THEY WON'T KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE WHO MADE THE COMPLAINT, BUT THEY WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY--WE SET IT UP SO THAT WE MAKE SORT OF AN INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE CANDIDATES, VERY CURSORY, JUST TO GET THE LIST OF PEOPLE THAT HE WANTS US TO CONTACT AND THAT SORT OF THING. THEN WE GO OUT AND MAKE CONTACT WITH OTHER PEOPLE, AND WITH OTHER PEOPLE. WE CONTACT EVERY JUDGE IN THE AREA WHERE THE PERSON PRACTICES, IF POSSIBLE; WE AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO, AND SOME- TIMES THEY HAVEN'T RETURNED CALLS. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THEY BEEN VERY, VERY COOPERATIVE. IF WE DEVELOP A BODY OF INFORMATION THAT CONCERNS US, THEN THE CANDIDATE IS CONFRONTED WITH IT. SO THE CANDIDATE COMES IN VERY LATE IN THE PROCESS SO THAT HE CAN REFUTE ANYTHING THAT IS TO BE REFUTED.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: SO YOU WOULD---
SENATOR POPE: HE HAS A CHANCE TO CONFRONT ANY PROBLEMS.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: OKAY; SO, YOU WOULD ONLY GIVE US THOSE THINGS THAT YOU FELT SOME CONCERNS WITH?
SENATOR POPE: SURE. WELL, IF IT'S A BASIS FOR A REASON FOR THE RATING, SURE.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A CANDIDATE REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR PROCESS?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION BECAUSE THIS TIME THEY HAVE ALL WILLINGLY COOPERATED, BUT WE'D GO OUT AND TALK TO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY JUST AS THOUGH THAT PERSON WERE PARTICIPATING. WE WOULD THEN ASK FOR AN INTERVIEW IF WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS. AND WE WOULD PROBABLY BE VERY CONCERNED, I WOULD THINK, IF SOMEBODY REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD DO THAT CANDIDATE MUCH GOOD TO JUST REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT RELATE TO HIS QUALIFICATIONS, OR HER QUALIFICATIONS.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: WOULD THAT COLOR THE BAR'S RATING, IF YOU WILL?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL; I COULDN'T SAY YES OR NO, BUT I WOULD THINK JUST FROM A HUMAN SITUATION THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO. IF SOMEBODY SAYS, "I AM NOT TALKING TO YOU ABOUT MY CANDIDACY," I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT'S--"WHY NOT? IS THERE SOMETHING TO HIDE?"
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: WELL, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HIS QUALIFICATIONS?
SENATOR POPE: IF A PERSON IS QUALIFIED, OR WELL QUALIFIED, OR SEEKING OFFICE, THEY SHOULD BE WILLING TO ANSWER ANYONE'S QUESTIONS, I WOULD THINK, ABOUT THEIR CANDIDACY OR ABOUT THEIR ABILITY.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: THANK YOU, SIR.
SENATOR POPE: BUT EVERYONE HAS BEEN REAL COOPERATIVE, I WILL SAY THAT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE HODGES HAS SOME QUESTIONS.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: SENATOR, IS THERE A MECHANISM IN PLACE IF A CANDIDATE DISAGREES WITH THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE BAR HAS MADE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS? IS THERE A MECHANISM IN PLACE WHERE THAT DECISION CAN BE REVIEWED OR THE BAR WILL FURTHER REVIEW IT? - I KNOW WE HAD A RELATIVELY TIGHT TIME FRAME THIS TIME, BUT PRESUMING THAT YOU HAVE SOME MORE ADDITIONAL TIME WHERE YOU HAVE A FEW WEEKS BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU COMPILE A RATING AND THE TIME THAT YOU RELAY THOSE RATINGS TO THIS COMMITTEE, HAVE YOU THOUGHT THROUGH WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE SOME MECHANISM WHERE A CANDIDATE CAN SAY, "I THINK I SHOULD HAVE BEEN WELL QUALIFIED," OR "I THINK I'M QUALIFIED VERSUS UNQUALIFIED," AND THE COMMITTEE WOULD FURTHER REVIEW THAT?
SENATOR POPE: THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR THAT, FOR REVIEW OF IT. I MEAN, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THERE IS REALLY NO MECHANISM FOR A REVIEW OF THIS COMMITTEE'S DECISION EITHER.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THAT'S TRUE. I THINK THIS COMMITTEE SIMPLY RATES A CANDIDATE AS QUALIFIED FOR PURPOSES OF BEING SCREENED AND GOING TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR CONSIDERATION, YOU HAVE LESS WEIGHTY CATEGORIES; AND MY CONCERN IS THAT I CAN SEE A SITUATION DEVELOPING WHERE IF YOU RATE A CANDIDATE UNQUALIFIED AND THERE ARE TWO OR THREE WEEKS BETWEEN THAT TIME AND THE SCREENING THAT CANDIDATE MIGHT SOLICIT COMMENTS FROM SUPPORTIVE LAWYERS WHO COME TO YOUR COMMITTEE AND SAY, "WAIT A MINUTE, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU MADE THIS ASSESSMENT, HERE IS ALL THIS EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT A GOOD LAWYER THIS PERSON IS"; I AM JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMITTEE HAS THOUGHT THROUGH HOW THEY MIGHT HANDLE THAT.
SENATOR POPE: WELL, WE HAVE CONTACTED, AND I'M NOT EXAGGERATING WHEN I SAY THIS, HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. AND WE HAVE FEWER VACANCIES THIS YEAR THAN WE ARE PROBABLY EVER LIKELY TO HAVE ANY TIME IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, BUT WE HAVE CONTACTED HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. I MEAN, A MINIMUM PROBABLY OF 40 OR 50 PER CANDIDATE; SO, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT, QUOTE, "THE BEST LAWYERS IN THE COMMUNITY" WOULD COME FORWARD AFTER A RATING AND SAY, "HEY, YOU MADE A BOO-BOO," THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WE WOULD HAVE CONTACTED INITIALLY, SO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE CHANGED THEIR MIND TO SAY THAT. SO WE DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM FOR REVIEW OF A RATING, NO. NOR DOES THE A.B.A., NOR DOES THE JOINT JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: WELL, I GUESS IT GETS BACK TO A SMALL CONCERN ABOUT THE PROCESS, AND THAT IS THAT WHAT PEOPLE SOMETIMES WOULD PUBLICLY SAY, THE SAME PERSON WHO MIGHT TELL YOU THAT THE PERSON IS A MISERABLE LAWYER MIGHT BE SITTING IN HERE TESTIFYING FOR THEM WHEN WE GET THEM IN HERE ABOUT WHAT A GREAT LAWYER THEY ARE.
SENATOR POPE: YES, THAT IS---
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: AND THAT CONCERNS ME.
SENATOR POPE: THE ONE THING WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS THAT BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING CONFIDENTIAL, QUOTE, "TRUTHFUL INFORMATION," WE DON'T WANT Y'ALL TO FEEL LIKE YOU WERE GETTING BLIND-SIDED BECAUSE, AS YOU SAY, THE SAME PERSON WHO IS TELLING CANDIDLY THAT AN APPLICANT IS NOT QUALIFIED AND IS COMING BEFORE YOU AND SPEAKING GLOWINGLY OF THE CANDIDATE. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT ONE REMARK OR ONE OPINION FROM A LAWYER IS JUST NOT GOING TO PUT SOMEBODY FROM WELL QUALIFIED TO QUALIFIED, OR VICE VERSA, OR PUT THEM IN THE UNQUALIFIED CATEGORY. NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR HOW BAD THAT LAWYER OR THAT PERSON'S REPORT TO US, IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN ONE PERSON'S OPINION. SO I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO IMPRESS THE EXTENSIVENESS OF THE CONTACTS WE HAVE MADE. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE PROCESS IS PERFECT. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO SIT DOWN AT THE END OF THIS LEGISLATIVE YEAR AND--IN FACT, WE'RE PLANNING TO MEET SOMETIME IN MAY--WE DON'T HAVE A DATE YET--OUR COMMITTEE, TO CRITIQUE THIS FIRST YEAR; AND AT THAT TIME, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR THE CHAIRMAN OR HIS DESIGNEE, MR. COUICK, OR WHOEVER, COME TO US AND MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT SOME MORE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT REVIEW PROCEDURE, AND I CAN'T SEE IT HAPPENING.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I CAN SEE--YOU MAY NOT DO IT, BUT I CAN SEE THE REQUEST COMING FROM A CANDIDATE, PARTICULARLY IF THEY HAVE TIME TO TRY TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER.
SENATOR POPE: WELL, THAT'S WHY I THINK MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE IT BECAUSE---
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: YOU MAY BE RIGHT.
SENATOR POPE: ---THE CANDIDATE CAN PUT SOMEBODY ON THE SPOT AND SAY, "LOOK, I WANT YOU--I AM GOING TO BE A JUDGE AND I WANT YOU, MY FRIEND A LAWYER, TO COME FORWARD AND SAY THIS OR THAT OR THE OTHER ABOUT ME." IF THE PROCESS IS AVAILABLE, I'M AFRAID THAT COULD SUBVERT WHAT WE ARE DOING.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: I THINK YOU PARTIALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION, BUT I AM STILL GOING TO ASK IT: BEFORE YOU MADE THE CONTACT, DID YOU PREDETERMINE THE NUMBER OF CONTACTS THAT YOU WOULD MAKE AN EFFORT TO GET ON EACH CANDIDATE?
SENATOR POPE: NO, SIR, WE DIDN'T PREDETERMINE THE NUMBER. WE WERE TRYING TO CONTACT AT LEAST 30, BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE MORE THAN 30.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: YOU SAID A MINIMUM OF 30?
SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: AND YOU SAID YOU GOT 40 TO 50, I BELIEVE?
SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: OKAY, THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR MOORE.
SENATOR MOORE: WHERE IN THE PROCESS DOES A CANDIDATE WHOSE ACCUSERS HAVE MADE THE JUDGMENTS--WHERE DOES HE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSERS, OR HAVE ANY CONSIDERATION IN SEEING EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL THE ACCUSERS?
SENATOR POPE: HE DOESN'T EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL THE ACCUSERS, BUT HE CERTAINLY HAS TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE INFORMATION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PEOPLE WE GO TO, THE FIRST THING THAT WE HAVE TO TELL THEM IS THAT THIS IS CONFIDENTIAL. THAT IS THE WAY THE A.B.A. WORKS, OR THAT PROCEDURE, FOR FEDERAL JUDGES. YOU TELL SOMEBODY, "ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING YOU TELL ME IS CONFIDENTIAL, NOW LET'S HAVE IT." AND THEN LATER IN THE PROCESS THE APPLICANT OR THE CANDIDATE IS THERE, AND HE OR SHE IS PRESENTED: "WE HAVE HEARD INFORMATION THAT YOU ARE EXTREMELY HOT-TEMPERED, AND YOU DO THIS, YOU DO THAT, YOU DON'T DO THE OTHER"; WE ARE GOING TO RELEASE THAT TO HIM IN A WAY THAT IT DOESN'T REVEAL THE SOURCE OF THE CONTENT, BUT IT ISN'T GOING TO BE ONE SOURCE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HAS GOT A TEMPER, AND AT SOME POINT EVERYBODY'S TEMPER, YOU KNOW, GETS OUT OF CONTROL, BUT HOPEFULLY JUST OCCASIONALLY; BUT IT'S THE PATTERN THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IN THE CASE OF A TEMPERAMENT SITUATION. AND A "PATTERN" WOULD MEAN THAT YOU WOULD HAVE MANY MORE THAN ONE PERSON COMPLAINING ABOUT IT. SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THEY DON'T DIRECTLY EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL CONFRONT THE ACCUSER, BUT THEY DO CONFRONT THE ACCUSATION. THAT IS WHY THE CANDIDATE IS---
SENATOR MOORE: SO IT'S ALL CONFIDENTIAL, UNKNOWN AS TO WHO MADE THE CHARGE, NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER OF WHATEVER IS SAID, JUST DEFEND WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, DEFEND YOURSELF?
SENATOR POPE: TO SOME EXTENT, BUT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU WOULD BE ASKING THE CANDIDATE, SAY SOMEONE WAS RUNNING FOR THE SUPREME COURT, I MEAN YOU WOULD BE ASKING THAT PERSON WHAT KIND OF APPEALS HE OR SHE HAD HANDLED. WELL, THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT IS A MATTER OF RECORD. AND THEN AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS, YOU WOULD CONFRONT THE CANDIDATE AND SAY, "LOOK, WE CHECKED THE RECORD AND WE DON'T SEE WHERE YOU'VE EVER FILED AN APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT. DO YOU THINK THAT AFFECTS YOUR QUALIFICATIONS TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT?" AND THEY MIGHT SAY, "WELL," WHATEVER THEY SAY; THEY ARE CONFRONTED WITH IT, BUT THERE'S NO CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE, BUT THEY CERTAINLY ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE INFORMATION; AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING. DID THAT ANSWER IT?
SENATOR MOORE: I GUESS I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT ENOUGH OR I'M JUST NOT SATISFIED ENOUGH THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THIS HEARING THAT WE ARE HAVING. YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE HAS A COMPLAINT AGAINST SOMEONE, THEY COME FORWARD. WE HAD A GENTLEMAN HERE EARLIER WHO HAD A COMPLAINT ON A RETIRED JUDGE.
SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR.
SENATOR MOORE: YOU KNOW, HE OBVIOUSLY THOUGHT ENOUGH AND WAS CONCERNED ENOUGH TO BE HERE, AND HE WASN'T WORRIED ABOUT NOTORIETY OR CONFIDENTIALITY; HE CAME FORWARD. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT REALLY IS THE CUTTING EDGE WHEN SOMEONE IS WILLING TO STEP FORWARD. AND, YOU KNOW, LAWYERS ARE JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PROFESSION, WHICH REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU ARE IN, THERE ARE SOME FOLKS WITH JEALOUSIES AND PROBLEMS THAT HIDING BEHIND CONFIDENTIALITY AND CLOAKS, YOU CAN SAY AND DO A LOT. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE GOT TO STEP FORWARD AND MAKE THAT COMMENT, SOMETIMES THAT SEPARATES THE SHEEP AND GOATS.
SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, SENATOR.
SENATOR RUSSELL: IT'S KIND OF EARLY, BUT DO YOU DETECT A TREND, IF, TAKING THE SENATOR'S QUESTION HERE, IT WOULDN'T BE A SINGLE INCIDENT, YOU WOULDN'T BASE THE QUALIFICATION ON A SINGLE INCIDENT?
SENATOR POPE: WE WOULDN'T MAKE A DECISION TO GO FROM ONE CATEGORY TO ANOTHER ON A SINGLE INCIDENT. THAT'S WHY IT WOULD BE A PATTERN.
SENATOR RUSSELL: IT WOULD REQUIRE A DEFINITE PATTERN?
SENATOR POPE: IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE A PATTERN. THAT'S THE BIG QUESTION THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING FOR YEARS IS THAT PEOPLE WANT GOOD TEMPERAMENT, AND THAT'S A SUBJECTIVE QUALITY. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY TO PUT IT.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
SENATOR MOORE: WOULD IT BE THAT THE GRAVITY OF THE COMPLAINT, IT COULD BE ONE? YOU SAID IT WOULDN'T BE ONE INCIDENT?
SENATOR POPE: NO.
SENATOR MOORE: BUT IT COULD BE; I MEAN, IF IT'S SEVERE ENOUGH, WOULDN'T IT?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS.
SENATOR MOORE: HOW DO YOU DETERMINE HOW MANY THEN? YOU SAY YOU HEARD IT FROM ONE, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HEAR IT FROM TWO MORE, THREE IS ENOUGH? - I MEAN,---
SENATOR POPE: WELL, THAT'S---
SENATOR MOORE: ---I GUESS IT'S COMMON SENSE---
SENATOR POPE: ---THE THING, WHAT'S ON THE RECORD, CONFIDENTIAL OR NOT, YOU STILL WRESTLE WITH IT. IF SOMEBODY COMES FORWARD AND POINTS UP A PROBLEM WITH, SAY, A SITTING JUDGE RUNNING FOR REELECTION, WELL, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 20 YEARS OF GOOD SERVICE? - YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOMEBODY--A WHOLE CROWD OF PEOPLE CAME HERE WHEN JUDGE EPPES WAS RUNNING A FEW YEARS BACK, AND HE HAS RETIRED. WHEN YOU HAVE A MAN WHO HAS HAD 25, 30, 40 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE AND THEN THEY POINT UP ONE SENTENCE THAT HE PASSED THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE; WELL, WE CONSIDERED THAT AND FELT LIKE IT DIDN'T OUT-SHADOW THE 30 YEARS OF GOOD SERVICE. SO ONE INCIDENT IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYBODY IN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER, AND THEN I'LL (INDICATING REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY).
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: THOSE COMPLAINTS, DO YOU REQUIRE THEM IN WRITING TO BE CONSIDERED?
SENATOR POPE: NO.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: DO YOU ACCEPT PHONE CALLS?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, WE WOULDN'T--IT WOULDN'T BE ANONYMOUS. WE WOULD ACCEPT ANY COMPLAINT. I MEAN, WE WOULD TAKE IT BY PHONE AND THEN FOLLOW UP ON IT.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: BUT YOU DO NOT REQUIRE THEM TO FILE IT IN WRITING?
SENATOR POPE: NO.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: I'M STILL SOMEWHAT BOTHERED BY A PERSON HAVING THE RIGHT TO ADDRESS HIS ACCUSERS; AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS: IF YOU WERE TO ASCERTAIN SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE DAMAGING, IN YOUR OPINION OR THE COMMITTEE'S OPINION, AND BROUGHT IT TO THIS COMMITTEE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WOULD YOU DIVULGE YOUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION TO US SO THAT WE MIGHT INVESTIGATE?
SENATOR POPE: NO, SIR, WE WOULDN'T.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: THEN YOU, IN EFFECT, WOULD BE MAKING THE DECISION THAT THIS BODY IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE.
SENATOR POPE: IT WOULDN'T BE ONE INCIDENT. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE--UNLESS IT'S SO SEVERE THAT IT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE; I MEAN, IT'S JUST HARD TO TALK IN A VACUUM AND HYPOTHETICALLY, BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THE PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE AS YOU ENVISION IT HYPOTHETICALLY. I SEE WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM, AND I AM CERTAINLY A BIG BELIEVER IN DUE PROCESS, AND--BUT HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH--PARTICULARLY WITH SITTING JUDGES THAT PEOPLE WILL--THEY WANT TO TELL YOU CONFIDENTIALLY ABOUT THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO COME BEFORE A COMMITTEE AND SAY ANYTHING.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: I MEAN, WE ALL---
SENATOR POPE: AND THEY CAN BE PROTECTED JUST LIKE A NEWSPAPER GETS PROTECTION FROM ITS SOURCES.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: IN EFFECT, THEN--I'LL TELL YOU, I'M REALLY BOTHERED BECAUSE IT WOULD LEND THE APPEARANCE TO THIS PROCESS THAT WE ARE JUST RUBBER- STAMPING WHAT YOU ALL GIVE US IF WE DON'T HAVE A MEANS OF CHECKING OUT WHAT YOU GIVE US. AND IF YOU WERE TO PUBLISH OR FIND SOMEONE QUALIFIED OR NOT QUALIFIED WITHOUT US HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE YOUR REASONS OR YOUR BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION, THEN THERE'S A CONFLICT THERE.
SENATOR POPE: WE'RE GOING TO BE, OR I'M GOING TO BE GIVING YOU THE REASONS. I THINK WE JUST IDENTIFIED THAT.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: BUT YOUR REASONS WILL BE, AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, WITHOUT SOME FOUNDATION OR SOURCE, AND, THEREFORE, JUST ANOTHER ALLEGATION; AND WE WOULDN'T ACCEPT THAT FROM ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT THEM COMING BEFORE US.
SENATOR POPE: WELL, I GUESS IT'S JUST GOT TO BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GOOD FAITH INVOLVED IN THE FACT THAT WE ARE CONTACTING PEOPLE AND WE'RE NOT JUST SITTING BACK PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT AND RATINGS AND THINGS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE.
REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE: YES, SIR. WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE PROTECTING THESE PEOPLE, WHAT ARE YOU PROTECTING THEM FROM?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, IN THE CASE OF A SITTING JUDGE, WE ARE PROTECTING THEM FROM POSSIBLE RETRIBUTION.
REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE: THE PEOPLE, AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OTHER ATTORNEYS?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, WHOEVER. IT COULD BE A LAWYER OR IT COULD BE A LAY PERSON.
REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE: WELL, I MEAN, AREN'T THERE PROVISIONS ALREADY OUT THERE THAT PROHIBIT THAT TYPE OF--I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO COME IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE ALREADY WHO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE. AND, OF COURSE, I THINK IF ANYONE IN THE BAR FELT THAT BECAUSE THEY CAME IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND SPOKE AND THERE WERE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THEM, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE RECOURSE, AS I WOULD UNDERSTAND IT, THROUGH THE JUDICIAL PROCESS TO HAVE THAT INVESTIGATED IF THAT WERE THE CASE? - I JUST--YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A PATTERN; OF COURSE, A PATTERN CAN BE TWO OR MORE TYPE INCIDENTS. I REALLY, I GUESS I'M ECHOING SOME OF WHAT I ALREADY HEAR FROM SOME OF THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS; IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF AN INDIVIDUAL THAT IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING A MEMBER OR CONTINUE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BAR, OR A SITTING JUDGE, THEN MY FEELING IS THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT SITUATION ENOUGH THAT THESE PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONFRONT THESE PEOPLE FOR US TO DIG THE TRUTH OUT. NOW I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU EFFECTIVELY DIG THE TRUTH OUT IN THESE SITUATIONS THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. POSSIBLY YOU CAN. BUT I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM ABOUT REALLY GETTING TO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF WHAT IS REALLY TRUTH THAT YOU CAN DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSE SITUATIONS WHERE IF--AND IF IT IS A PATTERN AND YOU HAVE A JUDGE THAT'S--TO ME, WHAT HAPPENS IF A JUDGE DOES KNOW WHO THIS COULD HAVE COME FROM? - IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CANNOT ALWAYS GUARANTEE THAT THESE THINGS ARE PROTECTED. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE AN INSTANCE THAT--I KNOW AS A LAWYER, I KNOW WHO PRETTY MUCH THROUGH THE YEARS ARE SORT OF THE PROBLEM CLIENTS THAT I HAVE HAD; OKAY, AND IF SOMETHING CROPS UP IN A REPORT ABOUT A PARTICULAR INCIDENT, THEN I HAVE PROBABLY GOT A PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHO THAT CAME FROM. AND I THINK MOST JUDGES KNOW WHAT PROBLEM CASES THEY HAVE; SO, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN REALLY SAY THAT YOU ARE PROTECTING THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE I THINK THAT IN THE NUTS AND BOLTS AND THE FINAL ANALYSIS, YOU MAY END UP WITH THE SAME PROBLEM THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THEM AGAINST, BUT YOU STILL MAY BE EXPOSING THE SITUATION FOR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS.
SENATOR POPE: WELL, I GUESS THERE IS ALWAYS, OF COURSE, THE POTENTIAL FOR CHARACTER ASSASSINATION ON ONE HAND, OR RUBBER-STAMPING SOMEONE WHO IS NOT FIT ON THE OTHER HAND, AND YOU TRY TO REACH A BALANCE WHERE YOU ARE NOT--THE WAY THIS WORKS IS IF THERE IS A HINT OR A REPORT OF A QUALITY THAT DOESN'T QUITE MEASURE UP TO WHAT YOU WANT IN THE JUDICIARY, THAT OPENS UP THE DOOR TO A WHOLE SUB-INVESTIGATION, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT. IT'S NOT AS THOUGH WE TALK TO 20 PEOPLE AND THEN PASS A RATING. I MEAN, IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS THEN THERE ARE GOING TO BE MANY, MANY, MANY MORE CONTACTS SO THAT WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A PATTERN, OR WHETHER IT'S VINDICTIVE OR A JEALOUS PERSON AT THE BAR THAT JUST DOESN'T LIKE THAT PERSON FOR OTHER REASONS. AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON THE GOOD FAITH OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS WE ARE UNDER, AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROCESS. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S PERFECT. I DO THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD ONE, AND IT'S PATTERNED, SUPPOSEDLY, AFTER THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, WHICH DOES EXACTLY THAT, CONFIDENTIAL INQUIRIES WITHOUT LETTING JUDICIAL APPLICANTS CONFRONT THOSE ACCUSING DIRECTLY, BUT ALLOWING HIM OR HER TO CONFRONT THE SUBSTANCE OF IT. SO, I MEAN, THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR IT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ASK ONE QUESTION ALONG THIS SAME LINE. COMING FROM A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, IF YOU DON'T MANDATE THAT YOUR SOURCES COME FORWARD AND EITHER TESTIFY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE OR MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO QUESTION, DON'T YOU RUN THE RISK THAT THEIR TESTIMONY, KIND OF VEILED IN THIS CONFIDENTIALITY, IS GOING TO BE GIVEN A LOT LIGHTER TREATMENT AND A LOT LIGHTER WEIGHT THAN IT PROBABLY OUGHT TO BE? - I'D ASK YOU TO CONSIDER--YOU SAID YOU HATE TO CONSIDER THINGS IN A VACUUM, BUT IN THE ANITA HILL/CLARENCE THOMAS SITUATION, SHE DID NOT ORIGINALLY TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. A STAFFER FOR ONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WAS APPROACHED BY A FRIEND SAYING, "I KNOW SOMETHING, AND I HAVE A FRIEND WHO KNOWS SOMETHING ON CLARENCE THOMAS." IT TOOK A LOT OF CONVINCING, AS I READ IT, TO HAVE MS. HILL COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY; BUT WHEN SHE DID COME FORWARD, SHE MADE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THAT HEARING, WHETHER YOU VIEW IT AS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, AND THE SENATE HAD TWO PEOPLE WHOSE TESTIMONY THEY COULD COMPARE AND WEIGH, AND WEIGH THEIR CREDIBILITY. IF YOU COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND YOU OFFER NOT YOUR OWN PERSONAL TESTIMONY, BUT THE VEILED TESTIMONY OF SOMEONE WHO IS NOT HERE, DON'T YOU RUN THE SUBSTANTIAL RISK THAT TESTIMONY, WHEN COMPARED WITH JUDGE JONES, WHO IS HERE AND WHO IS PRESENT, AND WHO CAN CRACK A GOOD JOKE OR TELL A GOOD STORY, IS GOING TO BE TOTALLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A NAME AND A FACE ATTACHED TO IT?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, YOU ALWAYS RUN THAT RISK, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONCE WE GET A RELATIONSHIP ESTABLISHED, I REALLY THINK THAT YOU WILL BE GETTING THESE REASONS AND THEN YOU CAN FOLLOW UP ON THEM, AND I THINK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LEAD YOU PROBABLY--THE CANDIDATES WE HAVE DONE SO FAR, THE PATTERN OF COMMENT IS VERY SIMILAR ON MANY CANDIDATES. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU GET REAL GOOD ONES HERE, AND REAL BAD ONES THERE. IN MOST CASES, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, THEY ARE RELATIVELY SIMILAR.
MR. COUICK: YOU TRY A LOT OF CASES; DON'T YOU LIKE TRYING THE EMPTY CHAIR WHEN THE OTHER GUY DOESN'T SHOW UP AND THERE IS AN EMPTY CHAIR THERE AND YOU'RE A CO-DEFENDANT, DON'T YOU LIKE POINTING TO THAT CHAIR AND SAYING, "WELL, HE'S NOT HERE; IF HE WAS HERE, OR HE'S THE ONE AT FAULT"; ISN'T THAT GOING TO BE AWFULLY EASY FOR THE JUDGE TO SAY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE?
SENATOR POPE: IT IS, AND IT COULD BE THAT IT'S DISCOUNTED. OF COURSE, WE'RE SPEAKING HYPOTHETICALLY. AND THE A.B.A. DOES THIS EXACT THING WITH DISTRICT JUDGES AND COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES; SO, THAT'S--CLARENCE THOMAS, WHEN HE WAS ON THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT FACE ANY ACCUSER, AND HE DID ON THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. IT DOESN'T MEAN TO MY MIND THAT THE PROCEDURE WAS FLAWED WHEN HE WENT THROUGH AND WAS SCREENED AND THERE WAS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PASSED THROUGH ON THE COURT OF APPEALS APPOINTMENT.
MR. COUICK: SENATOR, WHEN YOU WERE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE, DID YOU EVER USE THE SUBPOENA POWER?
SENATOR POPE: I DON'T THINK SO. WHEN I WAS ON IT, WE DID, BUT NOT WHEN I WAS CHAIRMAN.
MR. COUICK: WHAT WOULD BE YOUR VIEW IF THIS COMMITTEE WERE TO DECIDE THAT IF YOU CAME FORWARD WITH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN TERMS OF THE SOURCE WASN'T IDENTIFIED, HOW WOULD YOU VIEW IT AS CHAIRMAN OF YOUR COMMITTEE IF THEY DECIDED TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA ASKING YOU TO REVEAL THE SOURCE?

(LAUGHTER.)

SENATOR POPE: I WOULDN'T LIKE IT MUCH REALLY, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. I MEAN, I THINK IF WE DID SOMETHING WRONG, I GUESS I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST--I WILL BE CANDID HERE. I MEAN, I WOULD TAKE OFFENSE AT IT. I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS ARE THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD PROBABLY BE ASKING IF I WERE SITTING AT THAT END OF THE TABLE BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AT THAT END OF THE TABLE, AND I BELIEVE IN DUE PROCESS, AND THIS--YOU ARE KIND OF NERVOUS WHEN YOU SAY WAIT A MINUTE, THIS PERSON IS GOING TO BE JUDGED WITHOUT HAVING A CHANCE, AS REP. BEATTY SAYS, "TO EYEBALL HIS ACCUSER"; THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT PEOPLE ARE TRIED IN COURT, OBVIOUSLY. YOU HAVE TO BE CONFRONTED BY YOUR ACCUSERS, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS. IS THE JUDICIARY IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT WE WANT TO GET OUT EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION; SO, HOPEFULLY THIS PROCESS WILL ALLOW US TO FERRET OUT THE GARBAGE AND THE VINDICTIVENESS AND THE JEALOUSIES. IF YOU ONLY TALK TO 10 PEOPLE, YOU AREN'T GOING TO FERRET IT OUT. THAT'S WHY I'M TELLING YOU THAT WE HAVE MADE THE STEPS TO CONTACT MANY, MANY, MANY MORE PEOPLE. AND CONTROVERSIAL CANDIDATES ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE CONTACTS THAN THE ONES THAT AREN'T.
MR. COUICK: SIR, DID YOU EVER MOVE TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THIS COMMITTEE WHEN YOU WERE ON IT TO ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO BRING COMPLAINTS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE WITHOUT GIVING THEIR IDENTITY?

(LAUGHTER.)

SENATOR POPE: NO, I HAVEN'T DONE THAT AT ALL.
MR. COUICK: WELL, YOU'RE NOW STEPPING INTO THIS PROCESS. THE BAR'S A PRIVATE ASSOCIATION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN INTEGRATED BAR, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY BECOMING A PART OF THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS; SO, WHY SHOULD YOU TREAT THIS ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN THE COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE JUST FINISHED CHAIRING WHERE YOU NEVER MOVED TO CHANGE THE RULES AS TO CONFIDENTIALITY?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, WHY DOES THE UNITED STATES SENATE ALLOW THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TO GIVE THEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION?
MR. COUICK: MAYBE THEY'VE NEVER HAD THE BENEFIT OF SOMEBODY BEING PRESIDENT OF THE A.B.A. WHO WAS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
SENATOR POPE: WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. I THINK THE U.S. SENATE IS WILLING TO TAKE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT HUNDREDS OF FEDERAL JUDGES, WHO I THINK ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE A VERY HIGH QUALITY OF JUDICIARY. IF THEY HAVE DONE IT, I DON'T THINK THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD TREAT IT ANY DIFFERENTLY.
MR. COUICK: BUT SENATOR, I DON'T BELIEVE THE SENATE JUDICIARY PROCESS ALLOWS FOR SUCH CONFIDENTIALITY. BUT, I TAKE IT THAT YOU DO HAVE AN OBJECTION IF WE WERE TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA, BUT YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY ASKING THIS COMMITTEE TO CHANGE ITS STANDARD IN TERMS OF TAKING NONCONFIDENTIAL SOURCES?
SENATOR POPE: NO, I WOULDN'T EXPECT THIS COMMITTEE TO CHANGE ITS RULES, I MEAN, I WOULDN'T PRESUME TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, BUT I THINK THE RULES OF THIS COMMITTEE ARE GOOD RULES, YOUR COMMITTEE. I FOUND THEM THAT WAY WHEN I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE AND CHAIRMAN OF IT. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ARE PARALLELING THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN WASHINGTON AND THE A.B.A. THAT RELATIONSHIP IS VERY MUCH THE SAME. AND I SPOKE WITH A WOMAN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE YESTERDAY, WHO TOLD ME THAT THE A.B.A. BASICALLY OPERATES THE SAME WAY THAT I HAVE DESCRIBED OUR COMMITTEE IS WORKING. SO WE ARE NOT WITHOUT PRECEDENT HERE. I JUST HOPE THAT EVERYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL--MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF PATIENCE WILL BE GOOD. MAYBE WE WILL GET THROUGH ONE YEAR AND WE WILL SEE, BUT I WILL BE HAPPY AT ANY TIME TO MEET WITH THIS COMMITTEE, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND PARTICULARLY DURING THE INTERIM BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE END OF THE YEAR; AND IF YOU SEE A PROBLEM THAT HAS ARISEN THIS YEAR, MAYBE WE CAN ADDRESS IT THE NEXT YEAR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: NOW YOU'VE CERTAINLY HEARD THE QUESTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH I THINK INDICATE A LOT OF THE INTERESTING CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, WE NEED TO GO VOTE REAL QUICK OFF THE BALCONY, BUT WE NEED TO MEET WITH YOU AND TO RECEIVE THE REASONS FOR YOUR FINDINGS ON THE FIRST TWO CANDIDATES WE HAVE HERE FOR THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS--AND WE ALSO HAVE TO TAKE UP THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS AND THE TIMELINESS OF APPLICATIONS QUESTION; SO, WITH THAT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ACROSS THE HALL.
SENATOR MOORE: SO MOVED.
SENATOR ALEXANDER: SECOND.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SECONDED; THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. THERE BEING NO DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

(AYE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THOSE OPPOSED BY SAYING NAY.

(NONE VOICED.)
(EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM 12:06 P.M. UNTIL 1:05 P.M.)
(LUNCH BREAK; BACK ON THE RECORD AT 2:20 P.M.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, WE WILL RECONVENE THE HEARING. WE HAVE RISEN BACK OUT OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, HAVING MET WITH THE MEMBER OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION, AND I WILL NOW MOVE FORWARD AND CALL JUDGE CURTIS SHAW. JUDGE SHAW, GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
JUDGE SHAW: YES, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: AND IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

THE HONORABLE CURTIS G. SHAW, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOU, SIR. HAVE A SEAT.
A     THANK YOU.
Q     I NOTICE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS FEBRUARY THE 26TH, 1987. IT SURE DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S BEEN THAT LONG.
A     THAT'S RIGHT, SIX YEARS AGO.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     NONE THAT I KNOW OF.
Q     IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IT WILL BE DONE SO IN THE TRANSCRIPT AT THIS TIME.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Curtis G. Shaw
Home Address:                                         Business Address:
139 Amherst Drive                                 P. O. Box 125
Greenwood, SC 29649                         Greenwood, SC 29648

2.     He was born in Greenwood, South Carolina, on July 8, 1933. He is presently 59 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Bobby June Gambrell on June 7, 1959. He has two children: Mary Van Shaw, age 28 (law student), and Dana Shaw McCravy, age 32 (Teacher).

5.     Military Service: August 14, 1953 to May 25, 1955; Army Engineers; Corporal; US 53 202 522; Honorable Discharge

6.     He attended Clemson University, June 1951 to May 1953 (no degree, went into military service); the University of South Carolina, B.S., 1960; and Mercer University Law School, J.D., 1965.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended seminars as outlined by the South Carolina Continuing Legal Education Commission as required for all judges.

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
January 1991 - Lectured on arbitration at Law School Association luncheon; has spoken to South Carolina Bar Association on several occasions on Family Court matters and workers' compensation; in 1987 lectured on appellate advocacy at the law school and to the South Carolina Bar Association (1992)

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
General Practice                                                 1966-1970
Probate Judge, Master                                     1971-1977
Family Court Judge                                             1977-1983
Appeals Court Judge                                         1983-

20.     Judicial Office:
Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit Family Court, 1977-1983
Appeals Court Judge, 1983-present
Judicial Standards Commission, appointed in 1982 to present

22.     Public Office: Greenwood City Council (two terms), 1967-1970, elected

33.     His health is excellent. His last physical was in March of 1991, by Dr. Kenneth Stokes.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Greenwood County Bar; South Carolina Bar; American Bar

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
First Baptist Church; Mensa; Greenwood Country Club; Summit Club; Palmetto Golf Club

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     William G. Stevens, President
Greenwood National Bank
109 Montague Street, P. O. Box 218

Greenwood, SC 29648
(b)     Judson F. Ayers, Esquire

Judson Ayers & Associates, P C

First Floor, The Grier Building, P. O. Box 1268 Greenwood, SC 29648
(c)     W. H. Nicholson, III, Esquire
Nicholson & Anderson
Lawyers Building, 212 Oak Avenue, P. O. Box 457, Greenwood, SC 29648
(d)     G. William Thomason, Esquire
Callison, Dorn, Thomason, Garrett & McCravy, P.A.
Five Park Avenue, P. O. Box 3208

Greenwood, SC 29648
(e)     Marvin R. Watson, Esquire
306 Grier Building, P. O. Drawer 799

Greenwood, SC 29648-0799

Q     I NOTICE THAT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE RECORDS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. SLED AND F.B.I. ARE NEGATIVE. JUDGMENT ROLLS OF GREENWOOD ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU. THERE IS ONE CIVIL SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. THE SUIT ALLEGED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. IT WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANTS. YOU REPORT THAT YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT. AND I SEE THAT NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE STAFF, NOR HAVE WE BEEN NOTIFIED OF ANY WITNESSES WHO ARE PRESENT TO TESTIFY. SO WITH THAT, I WILL ASK MR. COUICK IF HE HAS GOT ANY QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE. DO YOU NEED ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS BEFORE YOU? - I SEE, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE GOT A COPY OF YOUR P.D.Q. WOULD YOU LIKE A GLASS OF WATER?
A     NO, I'M FINE, THANK YOU.
Q     JUDGE, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT I SAY, PLEASE ASK ME TO SPEAK UP. IF YOU NEED ANYTHING, I WILL BE GLAD TO TAKE A BREAK OR WHATEVER. JUDGE, IN REVIEWING YOUR MATERIALS, I NOTICE THAT YOU HAVE HAD A LONG DISTINGUISHED CAREER AS A JUDGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, BEFORE YOU WERE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS.
A     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     SO YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE HANDLING JUDICIAL MATTERS; AND I SAY THAT AS A PRELUDE TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU HEARD ASKED THIS MORNING, AND ONE WAS ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION? - I KNOW IT'S DIFFERENT AT AN APPELLATE LEVEL, BUT HOW DO YOU HANDLE IT?
A     YOU ASKED AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL?
Q     YES, SIR.
A     WELL, THERE IS JUST ABSOLUTELY NO CONTACT FOLLOWING ORAL ARGUMENT WITH ANY LAWYER. THAT WOULD JUST BE AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION, TO GIVE ANY INDICATION OF HOW THE CASE MIGHT BE RESOLVED. I MEAN, THAT IS JUST IT. THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER. IT WOULD BE A SEVERE VIOLATION IF AN APPELLATE JUDGE EVER GAVE ANY INDICATION AS TO HOW A CASE MIGHT BE DECIDED.
Q     HOW ABOUT BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENT, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ORAL ARGUMENT, AND THAT'S FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMMUNICATION, BUT THAT'S NOT EX PARTE; IF A CASE IS DOCKETED WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS AFTER IT'S SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, WHAT TYPE OF LIMITATIONS--IS IT THE SAME LIMITATION? - YOU JUST DON'T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER?
A     NONE WHATSOEVER. OF COURSE, THERE ARE FORMAL MOTIONS---
Q     RIGHT.
A     ---REGARDING THE CASE, BUT AS FAR AS EVERYDAY COMMUNICATION - IF A JUDGE PASSES ME ON THE STREET, YOU KNOW, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q     RIGHT.
A     BUT AS FAR AS A FOCUS TOWARD THE CASE, ABSOLUTELY NOT. IT WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
Q     JUDGE, IN THE AREA OF GIFTS, OR AS SOME PEOPLE HAVE TALKED THIS MORNING ABOUT THE EXCEPTION BEING FOR ORDINARY SOCIAL HOSPITALITY, WHAT IS YOUR OWN PERSONAL RULE? HOW DO YOU APPROACH THAT? WHAT IS YOUR BRIGHT LINE TEST, OR WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
A     ABSOLUTELY NO GIFTS FROM ANY LAWYERS WHATSOEVER. THERE IS JUST NO REASON FOR IT. AND, YOU KNOW, APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IS ALMOST AS BAD AS IMPROPRIETY; AND TO ME, IF I ACCEPT A GIFT FROM A LAWYER UNDER ANY CONDITIONS, IT IS AN APPEARANCE, IF NOT AN ABSOLUTE IMPROPRIETY, SO I JUST SAY ABSOLUTELY NONE.
Q     AND, JUDGE, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A GIFT, AND EVERYBODY ELSE DEFINES IT A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT WOULD A LUNCH INCLUDE A GIFT TO YOU? IF SOMEONE OFFERED TO BUY YOU LUNCH, OR TAKE YOU HUNTING, OR TAKE YOU ON A TRIP, OR WHATEVER, WHAT EQUATES AS BEING A GIFT TO YOU?
A     A GIFT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO AFFECT MY OPINION ON A CASE. IN MY VIEW, I THINK A JUDGE HAS A DUTY TO CIRCULATE BETWEEN THE BAR MEMBERS, CIRCULATE IN HIS COMMUNITY, NOT ABSENT HIMSELF OR SECLUDE HIMSELF FROM THE COMMUNITY. BUT I THINK YOU HAVE A DUTY TO CIRCULATE SOCIALLY AMONG --ESPECIALLY IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE YOU LIVE.
Q     IS THAT DUTY TO CIRCULATE, IS IT EVER AFFECTED BY PENDING MATTERS? - I MEAN, IF YOU HAD AN INVITATION FOR LUNCH FROM AN ATTORNEY, PERHAPS A FORMER LAW CLERK, WOULD IT MATTER WHETHER THAT CLERK WAS PART OF A FIRM THAT HAD A CASE PENDING BEFORE YOU AT THAT TIME, OR DOES THAT NOT HAVE AN IMPACT?
A     I CAN'T THINK OF IT EVER HAPPENING.
Q     BUT I SAY, WOULD THAT MATTER TO YOU?
A     NO. NO.
Q     SO YOU WOULD GO IN EITHER SITUATION?
A     OH, I WOULD GO, YES. A FORMER LAW CLERK, HE WAS MY TRUSTED FRIEND; HE ASKS ME TO LUNCH, I WOULD GO AND I WOULD PAY THE TAB.
Q     ALL RIGHT, AND WHEN I SAY "GOING TO LUNCH," I MEAN WITH YOU BEING THE GUEST OF THE ATTORNEY. I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR.
A     NO, THAT WOULD BE--NO, THAT IS NOT A PROPER THING TO DO AT ALL.
Q     AND I MENTIONED EARLIER THE ARTICLE BY PROFESSOR FREEMAN, IF YOU'LL RECALL, IT WAS: WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN FRONT OF YOUR MOTHER? WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF IT WAS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE DAILY NEWSPAPER? AND THE LAST ONE WAS: WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE NOMINATED FOR A POSITION AND WERE BEING SCRUTINIZED BY A SCREENING COMMITTEE, WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE? JUDGE, IN THE AREA OF GIFTS, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN SOUTH CAROLINA, INCLUDING THIS ARTICLE, OF CERTAIN SOCIAL AND CULTURAL THINGS THAT JUDGES DO WITH LAWYERS, WHETHER THEY BE A QUAIL HUNT, A DUCK HUNT, A DEER HUNT, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS WHERE IT'S A CLOSED ENVIRONMENT, WHERE THERE ARE JUST A NEW LAWYERS, A FEW JUDGES, AND THEY ARE THERE TOGETHER AND THEY ARE ENJOYING EACH OTHER, CERTAINLY THAT IS SOCIAL HOSPITALITY, BUT DOES THAT, IN YOUR MIND, RAISE QUESTIONS, AS YOU SPOKE TO EARLIER, OF PROPRIETY? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WILLINGLY PARTICIPATE IN, OR HOW DO YOU VIEW THAT?
A     WELL, OF COURSE, EVERY FACTUAL SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. I AM INVITED ON A COUPLE OF HUNTS A YEAR, BUT I MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE THERE, THAT THERE IS NO INDIVIDUALISTIC EFFORT BY ANYBODY TOWARD ANY INDIVIDUAL, AND I FEEL IT IS A DUTY TO DO THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO REMOVE THE SECRECY OF AN APPELLATE JUDGE. YOU KNOW, THEY ACCUSE US OF LIVING IN IVORY TOWERS, BUT I LIKE TO CIRCULATE AMONG MY FRIENDS.
Q     JUDGE, MOVING ON TO OTHER ETHICAL ISSUES, AND I GUESS THE REASON THAT I STARTED OUT WITH THIS IS THAT IT WAS JUST THE EASIEST TO HANDLE; IF YOU WERE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN A COMPANY OR IN SOME TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP, OR WHATEVER, AND THERE WAS A CASE THAT CAME BEFORE YOU THAT WOULD AFFECT THAT COMPANY OR OWNERSHIP, WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE RULE TO BE?
A     IF I HAVE AN OWNERSHIP IN THE COMPANY, I MAKE IT A PERSONAL POLICY NOT TO SIT ON THAT CASE. NOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULE IS. I THINK THERE'S A DE MINIMIS RULE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND I DON'T THINK IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED IN THE STATE COURT; BUT MY PERSONAL POSITION IS THAT IF I'M AWARE OF IT--IT MIGHT BE UNDER A PARENT COMPANY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF---
Q     RIGHT.
A     ---OF COURSE, I WOULD NOT KNOW THAT; BUT IF I HAVE STOCK IN A COMPANY, OF COURSE, I WOULD NOT SERVE ON THE CASE.
Q     AND, IN FACT, JUDGE, YOU AND I HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS WHERE YOU WERE MADE AWARE THAT WE DID A CONFLICTS CHECK.
A     YES.
Q     AND HAD GONE THROUGH THE STOCK OWNERSHIP THAT YOU HAD REPORTED ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AND CHECKED EACH OF THE CASES THAT YOU HAD SAT ON TO SEE IF YOU OWNED STOCK DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN YOU SAT ON A CASE. WE FOUND NO SUCH CONFLICTS IN YOUR SITUATION.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     AND AS I DISCUSSED IT WITH YOU, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RULE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND ONE THAT IS ACCEPTED IN MOST JURISDICTIONS RIGHT NOW--THERE ARE CERTAIN OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE NEW MODEL A.B.A. RULE--THE RULE IS REALLY ONE OF ZERO TOLERANCE. IF YOU OWN ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A COMPANY, YOU ARE NOT TO SIT ON A CASE. AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME COMMENTARY WRITTEN ON THAT BY PROFESSOR FREEMAN, AS WELL, AND OTHERS. IS THAT A RULE THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO PERSONALLY ACCEPT?
A     OH, YES, I WOULD ACCEPT THAT RULE.
Q     JUDGE, THE COURT ITSELF IS 10 YEARS OLD THIS YEAR.
A     THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE.
Q     ACTUALLY 14 IF YOU COUNT THE FIRST ATTEMPT, BUT 10 SINCE YOU REALLY WERE CONSTITUTED PROPERLY. TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SUCCESS OF THE COURT. WHAT SHOULD WE BE PROUD OF THAT THE COURT HAS ACCOMPLISHED IN THAT 10 YEARS?
A     PROBABLY THE BIGGEST SUCCESS WE HAVE HAD WAS AROUND '85 OR '86 WHEN WE REDUCED THE FOUR-YEAR BACKLOG DOWN TO ONE YEAR FROM A JUDGMENT. AS YOU KNOW, THE REASON FOR CREATING THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG, AND WE WERE FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT NOW WITH THE MUSHROOMING OF FILINGS AT THE TRIAL LEVEL, THE APPEALS ARE BEGINNING TO INCREASE, AND WE ARE HEARING MATTERS NOW 12, 14, 18 MONTHS FROM JUDGMENT; SO, IT'S BEGINNING TO CREEP UP AGAIN, HAVING TO WAIT LONGER AND LONGER TO HAVE AN APPEAL HEARD IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURTS.
Q     LET ME READ YOU A STATEMENT THAT YOU GAVE IN 1983 WHEN YOU WERE FIRST SCREENED, AND YOU WERE TALKING TO THIS SAME PANEL. AND, JUDGE, I BELIEVE IT WAS SENATOR MCDONALD AT THE TIME WHO ASKED YOU THE QUESTION: "DO YOU ASPIRE TO THIS SEAT ON THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH ANY PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF HOW THIS APPELLATE COURT OUGHT TO OPERATE IN TERMS OF ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE BAR? I REFER, FOR EXAMPLE, TO CRITICISM BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE BAR OF DECISIONS PROMULGATED IN SUMMARY FASHION UNDER RULE 23. SOME MEMBERS OF THE BAR FEEL THAT THIS SHORTCHANGES THE LITIGANTS." AND YOUR ANSWER WAS: "SENATOR MCDONALD, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE DO NOT HAVE A RULE 23 WITHIN OUR DISCRETION," I TAKE IT MEANING THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD NOT HAVE THAT. "BY THAT TOKEN, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER EVERY CASE ON ITS OWN MERITS," AND YOU WENT ON TO SPEAK TO SOME OTHER MATTERS. JUDGE, IN THE LAST YEAR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OPERATING PROCEDURES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE CHANGED.
A     YES.
Q     THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RULE 23 NOW, BUT THEY ARE CERTAINLY ASKING YOU TO TAKE ON MORE CASES OF THE COURT.
A     YES.
Q     AND ASKING YOU TO INCREASE YOUR CASELOAD, I GUESS CLOSE TO DOUBLING THE CASELOAD THAT YOU HAVE NOW.
A     YES.
Q     YOUR COURT HAS ALWAYS WRITTEN EVEN LENGTHY OPINIONS FOR UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM OPINIONS; THEY HAVE BEEN THOUGHT OUT, PERSONALLY, I THINK, VERY WELL BY A PANEL OF THREE JUDGES, AND THAT PANEL OF THREE COMES TO A--TRIES TO REACH A DECISION BEFORE THE CASE IS EVER ASSIGNED TO ONE PARTICULAR JUDGE TO WRITE THE ORDER. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM RESEARCH, THAT HAS CHANGED NOW, AND THAT CASES ARE ASSIGNED TO ONE JUDGE EVEN PRIOR TO ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT DOES THAT NOT LEND ITSELF THAT THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IS SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED IN THAT ONLY ONE JUDGE IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CASE FROM DAY-ONE, AND YOU ONLY HAVE APPELLATE REVIEW BY ONE JUDGE AT THE COURT OF APPEALS, AS OPPOSED TO THE PANEL OF THREE THAT YOU USED TO BE ENTITLED TO?
A     LET ME ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT. TO ANSWER THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION, THE RULES HAVE CHANGED. THE JUDICIAL REFORM ACT OF 1972, I BELIEVE IT WAS, PROVIDED THAT EVENTUALLY THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BECOME A CERT ONLY COURT RESERVED FOR THE FIVE CATEGORIES OF CASES THAT THEY HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER. AS OF JANUARY THE 1ST, THEY BECAME A CERT ONLY COURT TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE. NOW I GUESS FOR THE PAST FIVE OR SIX YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN BETWEEN 1,000 AND 1100 APPEALS HEARD. UNDER THE NEW ARRANGEMENT, WE WILL CALL IT, THEY ASSIGN US ABOUT 6 TO 700 OF THOSE APPEALS THAT WE ARE TO CONSIDER, AND THEY HEAR THE OTHER 400, INCLUDING THEIR EXCLUSIVELY ASSIGNED CASES. THEY GAVE US INSTRUCTIONS TO PREASSIGN CASES, AND THAT BOTHERED ME TO SOME DEGREE.
Q     WHEN YOU SAY "PREASSIGN," JUDGE, THAT MEANS GIVE IT TO AN INDIVIDUAL JUDGE SO THAT HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?
A     HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. I HAD SOME MISGIVINGS ABOUT THAT, BUT THEN WE HAVE RESEARCH FROM THE STAFF ATTORNEYS. WE HAVE RESEARCH TO SOME DEGREE FROM OUR LAW CLERKS. EVEN THOUGH THE PREASSIGNMENT IS FOR THE AUTHORSHIP OF THAT JUDGE, THE OTHER PANEL READS THE SCREENING MEMOS, READS THE RESEARCH BY ALL THE LAW CLERKS. BUT I CAN'T ANSWER HOW MANY JUDGES READ TRANSCRIPTS AND BRIEFS OF CASES IN WHICH THEY ARE NOT THE AUTHOR. I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. BUT AS FAR AS ULTIMATE JUSTICE, I FEEL THAT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE BEEN ON THE COURT FOR 10 YEARS, WE KNOW EACH OTHER'S THINKING, WE KNOW WHAT THE TREND OF THE LAW IS; I HAVE THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR ALL THE JUDGES ON THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Q     RIGHT.
A     AND IF THEY SAY THIS APPEARS THUS AND SO TO BE ON A PARTICULAR CASE AND I HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT, I SAY, WELL, SUBSTANTIATE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR ME, MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. SO I FEEL THAT ULTIMATE JUSTICE MAY BE AFFECTED A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOT THE RESULT OF CASES ITSELF.
Q     AND, JUDGE, THAT PRESUMES THAT THE SAME PERSONALITIES STAY THERE. IN FACT, YOU'VE ONLY HAD YOUR FIRST CHANGE IN PERSONALITY THIS YEAR.
A     YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q     SO, YOU KNOW, IF THIS CONTINUITY OF SERVICE THERE ON THE COURT WOULD EVER CHANGE, YOU MAY FIND YOURSELF IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RELY AS COMPLETELY INITIALLY.
A     YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     JUDGE, WHEN YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE ONLY ONE JUDGE IS ASSIGNED A CASE, YOU SPOKE EARLIER THAT PERSON HAS EITHER HIMSELF OR HIS LAW CLERK PREPARE A BENCH BRIEF, THEY GET READY ON THE CASE, THEY'RE READY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE LITIGANTS WHEN THEY APPEAR IN THE COURTROOM.
A     YES.
Q     IF A PERSON IS NOT IN THE POSITION OF HAVING READ ALL THOSE BRIEFS, READ THE TRANSCRIPT, PREPARED THE BENCH BRIEF, IS NOT HIS ABILITY TO QUESTION THE APPELLANTS, THE LITIGANTS, A LITTLE BIT LIMITED WHEN HE GOES IN THE COURTROOM?
A     OF COURSE, IF HE'S NOT DONE HIS HOMEWORK BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENT.
Q     RIGHT.
A     I THINK IT'S THE DUTY OF EVERY APPELLATE JUDGE TO BE PREPARED FOR, AT LEAST, THE FACTS IN THE CASE, TO BE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HAPPENED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS AN ERROR, OR A REVERSIBLE ERROR MADE.
Q     BUT ISN'T THE REASON WHY THEY SWITCHED TO PREASSIGNING CASES WAS TO TAKE SOME OF THE BURDEN OFF EVERY JUDGE ON THE PANEL TO HAVE TO DO EXACTLY THAT? - WHAT OTHER REASONS---
A     POSSIBLY.
Q     WHAT OTHER REASON COULD THEY HAVE, I MEAN, OTHER THAN EFFICIENCY OF SCALE?
A     BEAR IN MIND, THESE ARE NOT OUR RULES.
Q     RIGHT.
A     THESE ARE THE RULES WE WERE TOLD TO OPERATE UNDER.
Q     AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IS THIS A BURGER KING WHERE YOU DELIVER QUANTITY, OR IS THIS A PLACE WHERE YOU GET A QUALITY DECISION? AND I ASK THAT JUST FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BRINGING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT ARE YOU NOT FACED WITH A QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY SCENARIO HERE?
A     WELL, MIKE, OR MR. COUICK, I GUESS, IN THIS COMMITTEE ROOM, I WILL HAVE TO CONFESS THAT POSSIBLY THE QUALITY OF OUR OPINIONS WILL BE LESSENED TO SOME DEGREE IN THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO WRITE THE QUALITY OPINIONS THAT WE, HOPEFULLY, HAVE WRITTEN IN THE PAST DUE TO THE NUMBER OF-- THE INCREASED NUMBER OF MATTERS THAT WE ARE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR.
Q     JUDGE, TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, I DARE SAY THAT ANYONE WOULD QUESTION THAT YOU ARE A VERY EVEN-TEMPERED PERSON AND THAT YOU HANDLE YOURSELF WITH GREAT DISTINCTION IN THE COURTROOM; WHAT RULES WOULD YOU LAY DOWN FOR THE OTHER JUDGE NOMINEES THAT ARE HERE TODAY? HOW WOULD YOU TELL THEM TO TREAT THAT LITIGANT WHEN THEY COME EITHER TO THE TRIAL LEVEL OR THE APPELLATE LEVEL? HOW DO YOU TREAT THAT PERSON?
A     LISTEN. LISTEN. A LAWYER AND A LITIGANT HAS WAITED ANYWHERE FROM 12 TO 18 MONTHS FOR HIS CASE TO COME INTO THE APPELLATE SYSTEM; WHETHER HE WON OR LOST, HE STILL IS NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE RESULT WILL BE. TO ME, AN APPELLATE JUDGE HAS A DUTY TO LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT LAWYER HAS TO SAY IN THAT 10 TO 15 MINUTES THAT HE HAS TO OFFER HIM. SO, AS YOU KNOW, I'M BY FAR THE QUIETEST MEMBER OF THE COURT---
Q     RIGHT.
A     ---BECAUSE I WAS A TRIAL JUDGE FOR 15 YEARS AND I LISTENED FOR 15 YEARS, AND I STILL LISTEN WHEN A PERSON COMES BEFORE ME.
Q     JUDGE, JUST TO PUT ON THE RECORD, WE HAVE DONE RESEARCH ON THE NUMBER OF OPINIONS THAT EACH JUDGE HAS PARTICIPATED IN, AND YOU AND JUDGE CURETON LEAD THE COURT OF APPEALS SINCE 1983. ONE OTHER DISTINGUISHING FACTOR IS THAT YOU AND JUDGE CURETON, OTHER THAN JUDGE SANDERS AND JUDGE BELL, HAVE THE FEWEST NUMBER OF DISSENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COURT. JUDGE SANDERS AND BELL HAD ZERO AS OF, I GUESS, BACK WHEN JUDGE SANDERS LEFT THE COURT. YOU HAD 9, AND JUDGE CURETON HAD 9. TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR VIEW OF DISSENTS. AND WHEN YOU HAVE GOT A THREE-JUDGE PANEL, SHOULD YOU AIM TO AVOID DISSENTS?
A     OH, YES, YOU SHOULD TRY TO WORK TOWARD UNANIMITY OF THE COURT. SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW OR THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE'S NOTHING I RESPECT MORE THAN A DISSENT IN OPINION; IF IT'S SINCERE, I RESPECT IT. I DESPISE CONCURRING OPINIONS. BECAUSE IF THE RESULT--THE RESULT IS GOING TO BE THE SAME, THE TWO JUDGES OUGHT TO GET TOGETHER AND SAY, LISTEN, LET'S HAVE THIS OFFERED IN THIS PARTICULAR WAY INSTEAD OF HAVING A SPLIT OPINION. A LITIGANT WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A CLEARCUT ANSWER THAN A SPLIT ANSWER FROM THE APPELLATE SYSTEM.
Q     JUDGE, A COUPLE MORE SHORT QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF YOUR WORK ETHIC; TELL US, DO YOU PLAN TO STAY ON THE COURT FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE BARRING SOME CATASTROPHE? DO YOU ENJOY THE WORK?
A     OH, ABSOLUTELY.
Q     DO YOU FIND IT TO BE CHALLENGING AND INTERESTING?
A     OH, YES. I CAN TRUTHFULLY SAY I LOOK FORWARD TO GOING TO WORK EVERY DAY BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT IS LURKING IN A TRANSCRIPT.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     LET ME TOUCH ON ONE OTHER AREA THAT REALLY IS IN THE AREA OF ETHICS, AND THIS IS A STATUTORY ETHICAL QUESTION. NOMINEES ARE PROHIBITED FROM SEEKING PLEDGES FROM MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRIOR TO BEING SCREENED. YOU ARE IN THE ENVIABLE POSITION THIS TIME, I GUESS, OF LIKING TO THINK THAT YOU ARE GOING TO RECEIVE EVERY VOTE THAT'S GOING TO BE CAST FOR YOUR POSITION, AND CERTAINLY NOT WORRYING AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD BE IF YOU HAD FORMIDABLE COMPETITION. TELL US WHAT YOUR POSITION IS ON SEEKING PLEDGES AND WHAT YOU SHOULD DO AS A JUDGE, AND WHAT INVOLVEMENT CAN YOU SEEK OF ATTORNEYS THAT APPEAR BEFORE YOU IN HELPING GETTING CONSIDERATION OR PLEDGES? WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT?
A     OF COURSE, THE RULES ARE CLEAR NOW. ONCE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE ISSUES ITS REPORT, A PERSON WHO HAS OPPOSITION, THAT IS WHEN HE REALLY CAN TURN IT ON. I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH DISPLAYING YOURSELF AS AN INTERESTED CANDIDATE; BUT AS FAR AS MAYBE SEEKING AN ABSOLUTE COMMITMENT, I THINK THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES.
Q     JUDGE HOW ABOUT IF YOU WERE TO HAVE LITIGANTS APPEARING IN YOUR COURTROOM OR HAD CASES BEFORE YOU, PARTICULARLY IF YOU WERE ON THE TRIAL LEVEL, AND YOU ASKED THOSE ATTORNEYS TO ASSIST YOU IN RECEIVING EITHER CONSIDERATION OR PLEDGES, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR VIEW OF THAT CONDUCT?
A     I WOULD FROWN UPON THAT.
Q     COULD YOU TELL ME WHY THAT WOULD BOTHER YOU?
A     BECAUSE IF YOU ASK A PARTICULAR LAWYER TO HELP YOU AND HE DID SO, THERE'S A LIKELIHOOD THAT THE HUMAN TYPE BEINGS THAT WE ARE, THAT WE WOULD LOOK WITH FAVOR UPON THAT PARTICULAR LAWYER. I THINK YOU OUGHT TO KEEP IT OBJECTIVE AS TO THE BAR ASSOCIATION, NOT TO ANY PARTICULAR LAWYER.
Q     DO YOU THINK THE ATTORNEY WOULD PROBABLY FEEL THE LEAST BIT OF BEING PUT UPON, AS WELL, THAT HERE IS SOMEONE GOING TO RULE ON THIS CASE AND PERHAPS HE MAY LIKE JUDGE SHAW, BUT HE MAY LIKE JUDGE DOE SOMEWHAT BETTER, BUT HE MAY FEEL PUT UPON FOR HIS CLIENT'S BENEFIT IF HE DOESN'T DO WHAT YOU ASK HIM TO DO?
A     YES, IT WOULD CERTAINLY PUT A LAWYER ON THE SPOT IF YOU PUT HIM ON THE SPOT.
Q     JUDGE, JUST FOR THE RECORD, AND A QUESTION THAT I INTEND TO ASK EACH OF THE CANDIDATES THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THIS AFTERNOON: THAT YOU HAVE NOT SOUGHT THE PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SCREENING PROCESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLEDGE SOUGHT IS CONDITIONAL UPON YOUR FUTURE PERFORMANCE. HAVE YOU SOUGHT ANY PLEDGE CONDITIONALLY?
A     NO.
Q     HAVE YOU ASKED OR OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED ANY OTHER PERSON TO SOLICIT OR SEEK PLEDGES OF A LEGISLATOR'S VOTE ON YOUR BEHALF PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SCREENING PROCESS?
A     NO.
Q     DO YOU KNOW OF ANY SOLICITATIONS OR PLEDGES ON YOUR BEHALF?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     THIS COMMITTEE BY RULES ADOPTED THIS MORNING BELIEVES THAT IT'S YOUR AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO INFORM THE COMMITTEE IF YOU DO. THE SCREENING COMMITTEE ALSO INTENDS TO INCLUDE IN THE SCREENING REPORT ANY EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACTS REGARDING SOLICITATION OF PLEDGES. ONE LAST QUESTION IN THE AREA OF ETHICS, THE USE OF COURT RESOURCES; THE ETHICS ACT WAS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SOME 18 MONTHS AGO AND PUT SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT PUBLIC RESOURCES CAN BE USED IN ELECTIONS. ONE THING THEY DO PROHIBIT IS USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES FOR ELECTION PURPOSES, WHETHER IT BE MATERIALS, PERSONNEL, WHATEVER. SIMILARLY AS TO THE PLEDGE I ASKED YOU TO TAKE EARLIER, HAVE YOU USED ANY COURT RESOURCES, WHETHER IT BE PERSONNEL OR MATERIALS, IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO BE FAVORABLY SCREENED AND CONSIDERED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY?
A     NO.
Q     THERE WERE CERTAIN TIME GAPS IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT I MAY NOT WELL HAVE UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE OF JUST THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN. BETWEEN MAY 1955 AND 1960 WHEN YOU RECEIVED YOUR B.S. FROM U.S.C., WERE YOU AT U.S.C. THAT ENTIRE PERIOD?
A     NO.
Q     ALL RIGHT, TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. YOUR ARMY DISCHARGE DATE WAS MAY 1955?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     AND YOU RECEIVED YOUR B.S. FROM U.S.C. IN 1960?
A     YES.
Q     YOU WORKED PRIOR TO GOING TO---
A     I WORKED. THERE WAS WORK, MARRIAGE, JUST--I JUST SCRATCHED AND CLAWED MY WAY THROUGH.
Q     OKAY, AND THIS IS JUST TO MAKE THE RECORD COMPLETE, JUDGE, IN ITEM 13 OF YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS YOU DO NOT LIST A SALARY AS PART OF YOUR INCOME, FEES, PAYMENTS, OR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS EXCEEDING $500. TO MAKE THAT RECORD CORRECT, COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOUR SALARY AND OTHER EMOLUMENTS THAT YOU RECEIVED FOR BEING ON THE COURT WAS LAST YEAR, WHAT THE TOTAL OF THOSE WERE?
A     I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
Q     OKAY.
A     IT'S JUST WHATEVER THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR. I THINK IT'S $83,000, OR WHATEVER IT IS; IT GOES DIRECTLY INTO MY WIFE'S ACCOUNT.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     WE HAVE HAD MORE THINGS BLAMED ON WIVES THIS MORNING.
A     THAT'S WHY WE BRING THEM.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     JUDGE, IF YOU COULD, AT YOUR LEISURE WHEN YOU GET BACK, IF YOU COULD FORWARD BACK AN ADDENDUM TO THE REPORT THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE INCOME AND ANY OTHER PAYMENTS. IT'S MY RECOLLECTION THAT JUDGES RECEIVE CERTAIN OFFICE EXPENSES YOU MAY WANT TO GO BACK AND CHECK YOUR OLD FORMS AND SEE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO UPDATE THIS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ENTIRELY COMPLETE.
A     SAY THAT AGAIN NOW.
Q     I BELIEVE THAT EACH JUDGE, APPELLATE COURT JUDGE, RECEIVES A MONTHLY OR YEARLY ALLOWANCE.
A     THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR MONTHLY OR BI-MONTHLY CHECK, AND WE PAY.
Q     RIGHT.
A     AND WE PAY INCOME TAXES ON THAT AND IT'S ON YOUR W-2.
Q     RIGHT; SO, I'M SAYING THAT YOUR SALARY AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE THE TOTAL OF THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE FILLED IN ON ITEM 13; YOU WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE THAT AMOUNT, AS WELL.
A     OKAY.
(SENATOR MCCONNELL CONFERRED WITH MR. COUICK OUT OF HEARING.)
Q     I'M SORRY, JUDGE, THE CHAIRMAN IS REMINDING ME, ALL THAT YOUR STAFF HAS PUT ON HERE IS YOUR PER DIEM AND MILEAGE OF $237; SO, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. THE QUESTION ITSELF SAYS: "PLEASE LIST ANY INCOME, FEES, PAYMENTS, OR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS EXCEEDING $500 IN AGGREGATE RECEIVED BY YOURSELF OR A MEMBER OF YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY FROM THE STATE," ET CETERA, ET CETERA; "IDENTIFY THE SOURCE," ET CETERA.
A     YES.
Q     AND BEFORE YOU HAD ALWAYS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION; I WENT BACK AND CHECKED YOUR OTHER FORMS, BUT THIS TIME---
A     WELL, SEE, THEY CHANGED THE WAY IN WHICH WE APPLIED FOR PER DIEM THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR. IF IT WAS AN OVERNIGHT TRIP, YOU WERE TAXED FOR--OR YOU WERE NOT TAXED IF IT WAS AN OVERNIGHT TRIP.
Q     RIGHT.
A     IF IT WAS A DAY TRIP, YOU WERE TAXED. AND THEN THE FUNDS RAN OUT AND YOU DIDN'T GET ANY PER DIEM AT ALL; SO, IT WAS REALLY A MIXED UP BAG; SO, I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO PUT.
Q     RIGHT; IF YOU WOULD JUST LIST ANY--REALLY--JUST TAKE IT THIS WAY, ANY MONEY YOU GOT FROM THE STATE, I THINK THE BETTER RULE WOULD BE JUST TO LIST IT BY THE WAY THE RULES LIST IT. AND THIS IS AN ETHICS COMMISSION FORM THAT WE ARE USING.
A     OKAY.
Q     SO I WOULD APOLOGIZE FOR THE FORM, BUT IT'S ONE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER. JUDGE, GOING BACK AND CHECKING MARTINDALE AND HUBBLE FOR YOUR RATING, I HAVE TO GO BACK A LONG WAY, AND EVEN WHEN I GO BACK TO BEFORE YOU WERE ON THE BENCH, I DIDN'T FIND A LISTING. DO YOU RECALL YOUR RATING IN MARTINDALE AND HUBBLE?
A     IT WAS EXCELLENT; BUT LET ME SAY THIS, I HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH LONGER THAN ANY OTHER JUDGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, SINCE 1971.
Q     RIGHT.
A     SO THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE MARTINDALE HUBBLE RATINGS, BUT I GOT ONE AND IT WAS AN EXCELLENT.
Q     GOOD. JUDGE, I TAKE IT YOU'VE KEPT UP WITH ALL C.L.E. AND J.C.L.E. REQUIREMENTS?
A     ABSOLUTELY.
Q     JUDGE, ONE MATTER THAT YOU HAVE NOT DISCUSSED, AND I AM GLAD THAT YOU HAVEN'T BECAUSE I FAILED TO CAUTION YOU WHEN I BEGAN MY QUESTIONING, WAS YOUR RATING BY THE BAR ASSOCIATION DURING THIS SCREENING PROCESS. I BELIEVE THE ARRANGEMENT REACHED TODAY WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO WITHHOLD PUBLIC RELEASE OF THAT; AND IF YOU WOULD DO THE SAME, THE COMMITTEE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
A     I DID GET THE LETTER THIS MORNING; AND, SO, I WILL DO THAT.
MR. COUICK: JUDGE, I APPRECIATE IT. AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING.
JUDGE SHAW: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: OF COURSE, AS I TOLD EVERYBODY THIS MORNING, YOU ARE FREE TO GO.
JUDGE SHAW: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: JUDGE JOHN GARDNER. JUDGE, IF YOU'D RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

THE HONORABLE JOHN PICKENS GARDNER, SR.,
FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL,
TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     GOOD AFTERNOON, AND GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
A     THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Q     I NOTE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS ON FEBRUARY THE 26TH, 1987. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     I HAVE. I DON'T HAVE IT BEFORE ME, IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT.
Q     DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CORRECT OR NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR ANYTHING?
A     I BELIEVE I WROTE THE YOUNG LADY ABOUT THE ONE SUIT THAT WAS AGAINST MY SON.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT ENTRY IS IN THE MEMBERS' NOTEBOOK, BUT THERE TURNED UP A CASE PENDING, OR EITHER A JUDGMENT AGAINST A JOHN GARDNER AND IT WAS THE WRONG JOHN GARDNER.
A     IT WASN'T A JUDGMENT. IT WAS A DISMISSED P.C.R.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I AM INFORMED WE HAVE IT NOTICED IN THE BOOK.
Q     DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION YOU MIGHT NEED?
A     NO.
Q     ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF YOUR RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NONE, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SO IT WILL BE DONE IN THE TRANSCRIPT ACCORDINGLY.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     John Pickens Gardner, Sr.
Home Address:                                                     Business Address:
1829 Senate Street, Unit 1-A                         P. O. Box 11629
Columbia, SC 29201                                         Columbia, SC 29211

2.     He was born in Darlington, South Carolina, on July 18, 1923. He is presently 69 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Jeanette Todd Johnson on January 27, 1984. He has two children: Harriet G. Watson, age 43 (housewife), and John P., Jr., age 40 (lawyer).

5.     Military Service: He served in the United States Army Air Force from January 28, 1943 to June 25, 1945. His Serial Number was 34644364. He was a Staff Sergeant and received an Honorable Discharge.

6.     He attended Wofford College, 1940-1941, transferred to the University of South Carolina; the University of South Carolina, September, 1941 to January, 1943, when he entered the U. S. Army; Emory University Law School, September, 1945 to June, 1947, when he passed the S. C. Bar Examination and transferred to the University of South Carolina Law School in June, 1947, from which he graduated in January, 1948.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended numerous J.C.L.E. courses and three American Bar Association Judicial Conferences.

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
He has participated in panel discussions, S. C. Claimants Association - 1989, 1990 and 1991. Short address, Appellate Law - J.C.L.E.

10.     Published Books or Articles: During the last ten years, only four S. C. Appellate decisions have been chosen as lead articles in American Law Reports (A.L.R.). Two of those four cases he authored.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
When he graduated from Law School, he practiced with his father from January, 1948 to March, 1955, and has practiced law as an individual since then until his son and he formed a firm in January, 1976. He had an active practice divided almost equally between real estate work, probate work, criminal law and tort law. He tried from beginning to end hundreds of cases, including many murder cases, rape cases, and other serious criminal matters. His practice included many appeals, all phases of which he handled. He was sworn in as a judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals, September 1, 1983, serving continuously.

20.     Judicial Office:
South Carolina Court of Appeals - September 1, 1983 - to date

21.     Five (5) of the most significant orders or opinions:
(a)     Hickman v. Sexton Dental Clinic, P.A., 295 S.C. 164, 367 S.E.2d 453, 77 A.L.R. 4th 215 (Ct. App. 1988)
(b)     Chassereau v. Stuckey, 288 S.C. 368, 342 S.E.2d 623, 86 A.L.R.4th 255 (Ct. App. 1986)
(c)     Chapman v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 302 S.C. 469, 395 S.E.2d 446 (Ct. App. 1990)
(d)     Stokes v. First National Bank, 298 S.C. 13, 377 S.E.2d 922 (Ct. App. 1988)
(e)     Curtis v. DesChamps, 290 S.C. 315, 350 S.E.2d 201 (Ct. App. 1986)

22.     Public Office: He was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1958 and served 4 terms.

23.     Unsuccessful Candidate: He was an unsuccessful candidate for the House of Representatives in 1948 and 1970, and for Circuit Court Judge in 1961. There were 17 ballots for the judgeship race, and he led the first 12. In 1970, he opposed the Lamar riots. His son benefitted from this position in 1976 when he was elected.

28.     Arrested or Charged: He has never been arrested, but as attorney for Dr. K. G. Lawrence, he prosecuted Ervin and Freddie Cutter for extortion. The Cutters, when they were arrested, swore out a counter-warrant against him which was almost immediately quashed by Magistrate Thomas Rogers, on the grounds that the act complained of violated no law. The Cutters were convicted and sentenced to ten years.

30.     Tax Lien: During his first wife's illness, he was fined for improperly estimating his State Income Tax. He has never been fined for non-payment or underpayment of taxes, only for underestimating taxes.

31.     Sued:
In 1972, in his capacity as trustee for the American Bible Society, Judge Gardner and L. A. McCall, Jr., brought a foreclosure action against J. B. Perry and R. Trippett Boineau. Perry then brought an action against L. A. McCall and Judge Gardner, which was dismissed by Demurrer on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. In 1981, Fred Hopkins, who has since been imprisoned and disbarred, brought an action against Judge Gardner and his son, John P. Gardner, Jr., alleging misconduct on their part in discharging him as an employee. His insurance company settled this suit on a nuisance basis. In 1979, T. G. Gamble, a registered surveyor, compiled a map for Billy Graham who had applied for a $3 million farm loan to John Hancock Insurance Company, which Judge Gardner represented. The loan was not consummated. Billy Graham refused to pay T. G. Gamble for his work, and Judge Gardner, at that time, offered him $600 for his services, because he took the position that he had guaranteed payment for Billy Graham. Nearly 6 years later, in 1985, Gamble alleged that Judge Gardner owed him $2,500 for the Billy Graham plat. He brought suit but almost immediately accepted the $600 offer which Judge Gardner had made in 1979 and the suit was dismissed. In 1989, James H. Dickey, a former client of the Saleeby Law Firm of Hartsville, brought an action against the Saleeby Law Firm and Judge Gardner's old law firm and included Judge Gardner as a party defendant. This action alleged that the Saleeby Law Firm and the Gardner Law Firm conspired with one another in a divorce suit involving Dickey's mother. The suit was dismissed as being frivolous.

33.     His last physical was in June of 1992, by Dr. Donald E. Saunders, Jr., Two Richland Medical Park, Columbia, South Carolina.
He has suffered from a pinched nerve in his back and has been treated with a steroid epidural on three occasions by Dr. Michael H. Pearman, 1410 Blanding Street, Columbia, South Carolina. This back condition is nondisabling but painful on occasion.
He also has high blood pressure which is controlled by medication.
He wears glasses, and his corrected vision is 20/20.
He has a slight loss of hearing in his left ear and has a prescribed hearing aid, which he seldom uses.

34.     Hospitalized: On three separate occasions, he has been hospitalized for heart arrhythmia. The first was in 1987, when he was hospitalized for 4 days at McLeods Regional Medical Center in Florence, South Carolina. In 1989, he was hospitalized at Hahnemann Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for 4 days. In 1991, he was hospitalized for 3 days at Baptist Medical Center. The arrhythmia is now, he believes, controlled by medication and is nondisabling.

35.     He wears glasses, corrected vision 20/20. He has a slight hearing loss in his left ear.

43.     Expenditures for candidacy:
Stationery and stamps - $390
Machine Copy - Kinko's - $2.90
Entertainment - $52.00
Telephone - $390 (estimate)

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association, Circuit Vice President in 1955, 1956 and 1957; American Bar Association; Richland County Bar Association; President, Darlington County Bar Association, 1973; President, Darlington County Public Defender Corporation, 1979; and Darlington County Law Library Committee

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Park Street Baptist Church - presently. He was an Episcopalian for over 30 years. During that time, he served in many varied capacities. Some of these include President of the Men's Class, Finance Committee member and Vestryman.

50.     He was selected by the South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Association as their Portrait Honoree in 1991. A scholarship fund was established at the University of South Carolina Law School in his name.

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Jacqueline P. Ramsey, Assistant Vice President
NationsBank, NationsBank Tower
1301 Gervais Street, Columbia, SC 29201
(b)     J. Marvin Mullis, Jr., Esquire
1825 Sumter Street , P. O. Box 7757

Columbia, SC 29202
(c)     Ken Suggs, Esquire
1821 Hampton Street, P. O. Box 8113

Columbia, SC 29202
(d)     C. Ben Bowen, Esquire
508 East North Street, P. O. Box 2547

Greenville, SC 29602
(e)     James C. McLeod, Jr., Esquire
248 West Evans Street, P. O. Box 1090,

Florence, SC 29503-1909

Q     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE RECORDS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. NOTHING AT THE RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S. NOTHING AT THE COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. SLED AND THE F.B.I. FILES ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU. SLED FOUND TWO CIVIL ACTIONS. YOU HAVE CLARIFIED THAT ONE WAS AGAINST, WHO WAS IT, YOUR SON. SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED ON THE SUIT AND CONFIRMED IN 1991. LET'S SEE, I HAVE DOWN HERE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON YOUR HEALTH. HOW WOULD YOU QUALIFY YOUR HEALTH?
A     THERE IS NOTHING THAT IMPAIRS MY ABILITY AS A JUDGE. I HAVE BEEN HOSPITALIZED THREE TIMES FOR HEART ARRHYTHMIA; TWO TIMES IT HAS BEEN SHOCKED BACK INTO RHYTHM. I HAVE A --I WILL BE 70 YEARS OLD IN JULY. I HAVE A 70-YEAR-OLD MAN'S BACK, AND I HAVE A PINCHED NERVE, AND I HAVE HAD THREE STEROID EPIDURAL, WHICH IS A SHOT INTO THE HEAD OF THE NERVE. IT'S NOT JUST A--(PAUSE)---
Q     YOU ARE FUNCTIONING, AND GETTING AROUND, AND GETTING TO YOUR JOB?
A     YES. IT'S HARD TO RUN ANYMORE AND STAND AROUND FOR HOURS, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, IT'S NOT DIFFICULT.
Q     ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE, I SEE THAT NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND NO WITNESSES HAVE ASKED TO BE PRESENT TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU. SO AT THIS POINT, I TURN IT OVER TO MR. COUICK FOR QUESTIONS.
MR. COUICK: ONE CORRECTION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ON JUDGE GARDNER'S RECORD, AND THIS IS WITH HIS CONCURRENCE, IN HIS CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT, WHICH WAS FILED WITH, I BELIEVE, NATIONS BANK AS A SUCCESSOR TO C&S NATIONAL BANK, THERE WAS A MATHEMATICAL ERROR. I WILL---
JUDGE GARDNER: I DIDN'T PREPARE THAT. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT.
MR. COUICK: RIGHT. WE WILL BE GLAD TO SHARE THAT WITH ANYBODY. IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY IMPACT, POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY, BUT THERE WAS AN ERROR THERE MADE BY THE BANK, NOT BY JUDGE GARDNER.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     JUDGE, YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE COURT SINCE ITS INCEPTION, AS WELL?
A     I WAS ELECTED IN 1979.
Q     RIGHT, THE COURT THAT NEVER SERVED.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     TELL ME WHAT YOUR IMPRESSION IS OF THE 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE OPERATING COURT.
A     WELL, I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS, OF COURSE. I FEEL THAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE MISSION IN BRINGING UP THE BACKLOG, CATCHING UP ON IT. I THINK OUR COURT HAS PERFORMED WELL. I THINK WE HAVE A VARIETY OF JUDGES ON IT, SOME OF THEM WHOSE INCLINATION--A JUDGE'S ATTITUDE AND DECISIONS CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM HIS BACKGROUND. MY ATTITUDE, FRANKLY, IN MANY ISSUES IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM ANY EXISTING MEMBER OF THE COURT, AS YOU WELL KNOW; AND I THINK I HAVE DISSENTED, WHAT, 20, 30 TIMES?
Q
A     BUT THAT'S BECAUSE I, IN ALL SINCERITY, DISAGREE. YOU ARE OVER THERE---
Q     YES, SIR.
A     ---AND YOU KNOW I AM VERY SINCERE IN MY DISSENTS. I HAVE MY OWN ATTITUDE ABOUT JUSTICE, AND THAT IS THE REASON THEY HAVE MORE THAN ONE JUDGE.
Q     JUDGE, WHILE YOU SAID THAT IS A REASON FOR HAVING MORE THAN ONE JUDGE, THIS CHANGE THAT'S TAKING PLACE, HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, AND I DON'T MEAN TO CHARACTERIZE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE ON YOUR WATCH, BUT YOU HAVE BEEN, I GUESS, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AS THE SENIOR MOST JUDGE. THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN YOUR DECISION, I TAKE IT, BUT THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ORDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT, AND THESE ARE THE MATTERS THAT I SPOKE WITH JUDGE SHAW EARLIER, AND THAT IS THAT THE OPERATING PROCEDURES ARE BEING CHANGED IN TERMS OF HOW CASES ARE ASSIGNED. THERE ARE SOME OTHER MATTERS THEY HAVE CHANGED, I BELIEVE, AS WELL. WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF THAT?
A     WELL, I WAS ACTING CHIEF JUDGE WHEN IT OCCURRED, AND IT BEGAN ON NOVEMBER THE 17TH, THAT I CORRESPONDED WITH THE SUPREME COURT. MIKE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS FOR GENERATIONS PREASSIGNED CASES.
Q     RIGHT.
A     AS YOU KNOW, YOU WORKED IN OUR COURT, WE DID NOT PREASSIGN. THEY ORDERED US TO PREASSIGN CASES, AND THEY INCREASED OUR WORKLOAD BY 60 PERCENT. I DO NOT THINK THAT IT'S AFFECTED THE QUALITY OF THE WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE. I THINK IT'S INCREASED THE WORK, AND I THINK IT'S CAUSED SOME JUDGES TO WONDER WHY THEY WANT THE JOB. WE ALL HAVE TO TAKE WORK HOME AT NIGHT. I WATCH EVERYTHING EVERY OTHER JUDGE DOES BECAUSE SOMETIMES I DISAGREE WITH THEM. I READ THEIR DECISIONS.
Q     RIGHT.
A     AND I CONSIDER IT MY RESPONSIBILITY, IF I PUT MY NAME ON A DECISION AUTHORED BY ANOTHER JUDGE, I'M STILL SIGNING IT; AND IF I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, I'M GOING TO DISSENT.
Q     JUDGE, YOU MENTIONED THOUGH THAT YOU HAD MORE THAN ONE JUDGE INVOLVED AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL. IS IT NOT A PROBLEM THOUGH WHEN YOU HAVE ONE JUDGE PREASSIGNED A CASE THAT AT LEAST, IF NOT IN REALITY, AT LEAST BY TEMPTATION, YOU HAVE GOT A NUMBERS GOAL THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO REACH, 600 OR 700 CASES, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON YOUR CASES, THE ONES THAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR, YOU'RE GOING TO GET READY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. AND JUST TO BRING THE MEMBERS UP TO WHERE YOU ARE, JUDGE, CASES COME INTO THE SUPREME COURT. THEY ARE SENT OVER TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. THEY ARE DOCKETED IN BY MS. MIMS. USED TO BE THEY WERE DIVIDED OUT AMONG PANELS AND THREE JUDGES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR A SERIES OF CASES; IT MAY BE 10, IT MAY BE 20 WITHIN A TERM; THOSE THREE JUDGES WERE JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SYSTEM NOW IS THAT WHEN A CASE COMES IN, BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENT IS EVER HEARD THOSE CASES ARE PREASSIGNED TO ONE JUDGE. THAT JUDGE IS RESPONSIBLE, UNLESS SOMETHING DRASTICALLY CHANGES, FOR GETTING THAT OPINION OUT THE DOOR. IT COMES--IT'S PREORDAINED, IT'S COMING OFF HIS WORD PROCESSOR. IS IT NOT AT LEAST TEMPTING THAT WITH SO MUCH WORK TO DO---
A     IF YOU HAD A LAZY JUDGE, IT WOULD BE A DANGEROUS THING. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE ANY LAZY JUDGES. I HAVE SOME WHOSE BACKGROUND IS DIFFERENT FROM MINE, WHO ARE MORE CORPORATE- MINDED THAN I AM, WHO I THINK FRANKLY MAYBE NOT--MIGHT NOT HAVE THE SAME KNOWLEDGE OF TRUST LAW AND REAL ESTATE LAW THAT I HAVE.
Q     RIGHT.
A     BUT I THINK EVERY JUDGE ON THAT COURT READS EVERY CASE. I HEARD WHAT JUDGE SHAW SAID. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST SINCERE JUDGES WE HAVE. I DON'T INTEND, IF I CAN HELP IT, TO ALLOW THE QUALITY OF THE WORK THAT I HAVE--I TAKE WORK HOME ABOUT EVERY NIGHT. I SLEEP WITH IT ABOUT EVERY NIGHT. I JUST HAPPEN TO LOVE THE LAW. AND WHEN I SIGN A DECISION, I KNOW WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT, AND I KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH WHAT THE TRIAL JUDGE--THE AUTHOR OF THE--THE JUDGE THAT AUTHORED IT, I AGREE TO SIGN IT OR ELSE I LET IT BE KNOWN THAT I DISAGREE.
Q     IF THIS GROUP WERE TO WALK INTO THE COURTROOM NOW, AS OPPOSED TO A YEAR-AND-A-HALF AGO, AND LISTEN TO THE QUESTIONING OF APPELLATE LITIGANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, WOULD THEY NOTICE THAT ONE JUDGE TENDED TO ASK MORE OF THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?
A     THEY DO THAT ON THE SUPREME COURT. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY DO IT ON OUR COURT, MIKE.
Q     WELL.
A     YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A HIGH COURT AND I ASK QUESTIONS. I'M PREPARED ON EVERY CASE. I TRY TO BE; AND I THINK I AM, IN ALL HONESTY. I SWORE TO TELL THE TRUTH HERE, AND I THINK I AM.
Q     JUDGE, MY QUESTION IS MORE OF A SYSTEMS QUESTION THAN IT IS A PERSONALITY QUESTION.
A     I KNOW, BUT THE QUESTION YOU ARE ASKING, AND WE AS A GROUP OF JUDGES FELT BEFORE WE WERE ORDERED TO PREASSIGN CASES, WE AS A GROUP OF JUDGES FELT THAT WE HAD A BETTER CHANCE FOR DOING JUSTICE IF WE DID NOT REPREASSIGN CASES. WE HAD NO CHOICE. THE SUPREME COURT TOLD US WHAT TO DO. WHEN I TOOK OVER, FRANKLY THERE WAS A VERY FRAGILE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Q     JUDGE, I GUESS THAT'S THE GRAVAMEN OF MY QUESTION IS, NO LONGER ARE YOU GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE JUST FOR YOUR CASES; YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE TEAM LEADER, THE QUARTERBACK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, IF YOU ARE ELECTED TO THIS POSITION.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     YOU'RE ENTRUSTED TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT WITH FULFILLING THE STATUTORY DUTY THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY SAW FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS; AND IN 1979 THROUGH '83, IN THE LEWIS/GRESSETTE ERA, WHEN I WAS HERE AS A LAW CLERK, FOR THIS SAME COMMITTEE, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW SEPARATE THOSE COURTS WERE GOING TO BE AND WAS THE SUPREME COURT ALWAYS GOING TO TELL THE COURT OF APPEALS EXACTLY WHAT TO DO AND HOW?
A     AT THAT TIME WE THOUGHT WE HAD A ONE-TIER APPELLATE SYSTEM.
Q     RIGHT.
A     WE THOUGHT THAT THE CASES WOULD BE DIVIDED. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. THEY HAVE ABOUT 1050 CASES A YEAR, AND THAT'S ON APPEAL. WE ARE TRYING TO GET A NEW PANEL OF THREE NEW APPELLATE JUDGES FOR OUR COURT. AT THAT TIME THEY WILL ASSIGN US APPROXIMATELY 900 CASES OF THE 1050; MAYBE MORE. AND AT ABOUT THAT TIME, WHICH I THINK WILL OCCUR IF I AM ELECTED DURING THE TIME THAT I AM CHIEF JUDGE, WE WILL BEGIN TO PROCESS ALL NOTICES OF INTENTION TO APPEAL AND INVENTORY CASES IN AND OUT, AND TRACK THEM AS THEY GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM. ONE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHIEF JUDGE IS TO TRACK THE CASES TO SEE HOW MUCH WORK WE ARE DOING. THE FIRST QUARTER THAT I TOOK OVER WE DID ABOUT 45 PERCENT MORE WORK THAT THE COURT HAD DONE. IT'S HISTORY.
Q     JUDGE, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE QUANTITY OF WORK THAT IS DONE VERSUS THE QUALITY OF WORK THAT'S DONE, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE PROUD BECAUSE YOU ARE DOING MORE WORK; I KNOW THAT YOU'RE ALSO PROUD IF YOU DO MORE WORK AT THE SAME QUALITY LEVEL. BUT ISN'T THERE THIS TENSION WHEN YOU ASSIGN ONLY ONE JUDGE A CASE THAT IF HE'S EITHER LAZY OR DISHONEST, THE LIKELIHOOD OF SOMEBODY BEING ABLE TO CATCH HIM IS GREATLY DIMINISHED, THAN IF YOU HAVE THREE JUDGES RESPONSIBLE FOR CASES.
A     I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, AND I THINK THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU'D HAVE A LAZY JUDGE--BUT YOU KNOW THE JUDGES ON OUR COURT.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     GOOLSBY WORKS ALL THE TIME. RANDY BELL WORKS RELIGIOUSLY. CURTIS DOES. ALL OF THEM DO.
Q     YES, SIR, BUT THAT CEILING CAN CAVE IN OVER AT THE COURT OF APPEALS TOMORROW AND WE MAY HAVE TO GET A WHOLE NEW GROUP; I MEAN, AND I'M SPEAKING OF THE SYSTEM. AND I GUESS THE REASON I ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION MORE THAN ANY OTHER NOMINEE SO FAR TODAY IS THAT AS THE TEAM LEADER FOR THE COURT, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR VOICING OBJECTION TO THE SUPREME COURT---
A     YES, SIR.
Q     ---TO THINGS THAT YOU FEEL TO BE INAPPROPRIATE, AND I KNOW THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS THE BOSS. HE IS HEAD OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. BUT WHAT IS YOUR ROLE IN THE FUTURE WHEN YOU FIND THE SUPREME COURT ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW DOES NOT SUIT THE CIRCUMSTANCE? WHAT STEPS ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE?
A     WELL, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE HAD, I HAVE BEEN SORT OF LIKE A RED-HEADED STEPCHILD AS THE ACTING CHIEF JUDGE. THEY WRITE ME LETTERS SAYING THAT I AM THE ACTING CHIEF JUDGE. THEY CALL ME AND ASK ME TO SEND A JUDGE OVER THERE TO SIT, THEY TREAT ME AS IF I'M THE ACTING CHIEF JUDGE, BUT I DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. I HAVEN'T BEEN ELECTED. THE SITUATION DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE SUPREME COURT THAT THERE WAS NO CONTACT BETWEEN THE CHIEF JUDGE AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS THERE IS A--THAT SITUATION HAS BEEN REMEDIED. WE DO HAVE A VERY CORDIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES. I DO BELIEVE THIS, THAT A CHIEF JUDGE HAS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO GO OVER THERE AND SAY, "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL," OR "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE THESE FUNDS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE AS FAR AS COMPUTERIZING THE COURT," THAT TYPE OF THING. ANY CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS TO BE THE KIND OF MAN WHO CAN LOOK YOU IN THE EYE AND EXPRESS THE NEEDS OF HIS COURT. I DON'T THINK I'D HAVE A BIT OF TROUBLE DOING THAT,MIKE.
Q     AND, JUDGE, IF THIS PANEL REAFFIRMED THE NEED THEY SAW FOR HAVING THREE-JUDGE PANELS, I TAKE IT YOU WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM EXPRESSING THAT IDEA TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE?
A     NO.
Q     JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, TELL ME WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A GOOD JUDGE IS, AND WHAT DO THEY DO?
A     I PRACTICED LAW 33 YEARS; I HAVE A SON WHO IS STILL PRACTICING LAW; HE DOESN'T PRACTICE BEFORE ME; LAWYERS ADDRESS JUDGES AS "YOUR HONOR," AND "IF THE COURT PLEASE," AND WITH THAT KIND OF DEFERENCE. I THINK ANY JUDGE WHO SITS ON THE BENCH OUGHT TO BE A GENTLEMAN. HE OUGHT TO HAVE A KIND ATTITUDE TOWARDS EVERY PERSON. AND IF HE HAS BEEN A TRIAL LAWYER, AS I WAS FOR 33 YEARS, HE OUGHT TO LOOK WITH COMPASSION WITH THE PEOPLE DOWN THERE MAKING THE ARGUMENTS. I TRY TO.
Q     JUDGE, HOW ABOUT THE TEMPERAMENT OF A CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN JUST STANDARD JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT?
A     WELL, I THINK THE CHIEF JUDGE HAS TO MAINTAIN A SENSE OF DIGNITY AND NOT LET THE SITUATION GET TOO SERIOUS.
Q     WHAT WOULD YOU---
A     EVERY JUDGE, MIKE--I STUDY THESE CASES AND EVERY JUDGE IN MY COURT STUDIES THEM BEFORE WE GO TO COURT, AND SOMETIMES WE EXPECT THE LAWYER TO LOSE A CASE, AND I VERY OFTEN TELL A LAWYER: NOW I AM GOING TO HELP YOU, AND THIS IS A PROBLEM I HAVE HELPING YOU, AND THIS IS THE QUESTION. AND I THINK WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN A COMPASSIONATE WAY. YOU OUGHT TO.
Q     HOW ABOUT AMONG THE COURT ITSELF, WHAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP AND SPIRIT DO YOU WANT TO BRING TO THAT COURT? WHAT THINGS DO YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH AMONG JUST THE SIX JUDGES THERE, OR NINE THAT COULD BE THERE IF A PANEL OF THREE IS ADDED.
A     I WANT TO HAVE A FEELING OF COLLEGIALITY, AND WE HAVE. I THINK ONE OF THE JUDGES GOT VERY MUCH UPSET WITH ME BECAUSE I ENFORCED THE SUPREME COURT RULES. I LIKE TO GET ALONG WITH PEOPLE. AND I THINK THE COURT, WE OUGHT TO HAVE A SENSE OF COLLEGIALITY, BROTHERHOOD, OR SISTERHOOD IF WE HAVE A WOMAN ON THE COURT. WE OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT JUDGES, OTHER JUDGES WHEN THEY ARE IN THE HOSPITAL, OR WHEN THEY ARE HAVING DIFFICULTIES. A CHIEF JUDGE HAS JUDGES COME IN TO HIM AND TELL HIM THEIR PERSONAL PROBLEMS, AND THAT HAS HAPPENED TO ME QUITE OFTEN SINCE I HAVE BEEN EVEN THE ACTING CHIEF JUDGE. THEY HAVE COME IN WITH THEIR PROBLEMS AND LITTLE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION THAT THEY HAVE, AND THAT TYPE THING; I THINK I HANDLED IT WELL. EVERYBODY SAYS THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS PLEASED WITH WHAT I HAVE DONE, AND I THINK THE CLERK IS PLEASED, AND ALL THE JUDGES EXCEPT POSSIBLY ONE.
Q     WHAT SPECIFIC PLANS DO YOU HAVE FOR ENCOURAGING THIS SPIRIT OF COLLEGIALITY? WHAT PROGRAMS DO YOU WANT TO PUT IN PLACE? WHAT THINGS DO YOU WANT TO DO? IF YOU ARE, WHEN YOU ARE, ELECTED CHIEF JUDGE THREE WEEKS, FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW, WHAT IS ONE OF THE FIRST SEVERAL THINGS THAT YOU ARE GOING DO TO INCREASE THAT SPIRIT OF COLLEGIALITY?
A     WELL, THE FIRST THING WE WILL DO IS JUST HAVE A MEETING OF THE COURT AND DECIDE EXACTLY WHERE WE STAND, WHAT PROCEDURES WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW. I HAVE ALREADY CHANGED MUCH IN THE COURT. WE HAD A COURT WITH NO AFRICAN AMERICANS ON THE STAFF, ON THE CLERK'S STAFF, AND I IMMEDIATELY GOT JUDGE CURETON DOWN THERE AND TOLD HIM THAT WE HAD TO CORRECT THAT, THAT THERE HAD TO BE PEOPLE WHO WERE CAPABLE, AND HE IS GOING ABOUT DOING IT. WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH COMPLYING WITH THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT. WE ARE GOING TO CORRECT ALL THAT. MY OFFICE AND THE NEW JUDGE'S OFFICE ALMOST COLLAPSED FROM LEAKS, AND WE HAVE GOT THAT CORRECTED. ANY JUDGE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND ESPECIALLY THE CHIEF JUDGE, WANTS TO CONSIDER HIMSELF A KIND, CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN.
Q     BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN YOU GET THERE THE FIRST DAYS, OTHER THAN THIS MEETING, WHAT KIND OF THINGS ARE YOU GOING TO PUT INTO PLACE? - I KNOW YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE A VISION TO WANT THIS JOB AS MUCH AS YOU DO. WHAT KIND OF COURT DO YOU SEE COMING OUT OF BEING THE GARDNER COURT? WHAT KIND OF COURT IS IT?
A     WELL, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE GARDNER COURT HAD THE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES OF GETTING THAT LETTER THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT FROM THE SUPREME COURT; AND, UNFORTUNATELY, I HAD TO SET THAT PROCEDURE, ESTABLISH IT MYSELF, BECAUSE THE COURT WAS DIVIDED ON IT, AND IT CAUSED SOME DIVISION WITH JUST ONE JUDGE. I HAVE DONE IT. THE PROCEDURE IS WORKING BEAUTIFULLY, AND WE HANDLED 30 CASES APIECE A MONTH; THAT IS, ASSUMING WE STUDY THE 30 CASES. THAT'S THE FILE, MIKE, YOU HAVE SEEN THEM THAT THICK. NOW YOU DON'T READ EVERY WORD OF IT, BUT I TAKE IT HOME AND I STUDY IT BECAUSE I LOVE IT. AND I EXPRESS MYSELF. AND I THINK THAT DAY-TO-DAY, THERE IS NOT A DAY THAT THE CLERK DOESN'T COME DOWN AND ASK ME QUESTIONS, PERSONAL PROBLEMS, THAT KIND OF THING. THERE IS NOT A DAY THAT ONE OR TWO JUDGES DON'T COME IN AND TALK WITH ME. THERE'S NOT A DAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES. IT'S NOT AN INSURMOUNTABLE JOB. IT'S NOT THAT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. IT'S A JOB THAT A GOOD JUDGE CAN HANDLE.
Q     JUDGE, WHAT TYPE OF TIME COMMITMENT IN TERMS OF TERM, NOT HOURS PER WEEK, BUT HOW MANY YEARS WOULD YOU SEE YOURSELF SERVING IN THIS TERM IF YOU WERE ELECTED THIS TIME?
A     YOU MEAN HOW MANY YEARS AM I GOING TO SERVE FROM NOW ON?
Q     YES, SIR.
A     I WILL BE 70; I THINK M.O. AND I ARE ABOUT THE SAME AGE. I WILL BE 70 IN JULY. AND I CAN'T SERVE BUT TWO MORE YEARS, BUT I'LL BE RIGHT HERE IN COLUMBIA, AND I'M QUITE SURE IF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE JUDGE, THE CHIEF JUDGE AFTER I LEAVE, IF I'M ELECTED, CALLS ME, I THINK I WILL SERVE CONTINUOUSLY LIKE BRUCE LITTLEJOHN. I INTEND TO. YOU KNOW, A JUDGE WOULD BE THE LAST PERSON TO KNOW IF HIS MIND WASN'T SHARP ENOUGH TO BE A JUDGE. WHEN YOU GET 70, YOU REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE FADING CAPABILITIES. NOBODY WOULD KNOW THAT EXCEPT THE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND IT WOULD BE HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO CALL THE JUDGE IN AND SAY, "YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RETIRE." I HAVE WORKING WITH ME FOR THE LAST YEAR BRUCE LITTLEJOHN, A JUDGE THAT I LOVE; HE WILL BE 80 YEARS OLD IN JULY. I THINK BRUCE LITTLEJOHN IS ONE OF THE BEST JUDGES IN SOUTH CAROLINA THIS DAY, AND HE IS 80; AND HE HAS WORKED AS MUCH AS ANY JUDGE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS SINCE I HAVE BEEN THERE.
Q     JUDGE, MOVING ON TO QUESTIONS ABOUT HEALTH, I WILL HAVE TO TELL YOU A FUNNY STORY THAT HAPPENED THIS WEEK. I WAS REVIEWING YOUR FILE WITH MS. GOODMAN, OUR LADY LAW CLERK, AND I COULDN'T REMEMBER THE MEDICAL PROCEDURE YOU HAD. AND I SAID, WELL, NANCY, IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHAT A PREGNANT LADY HAS WHENEVER SHE HAS HER BABY."
A     (LAUGHED.)
Q     AND I SAID, "DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT PROCEDURE JUDGE GARDNER HAD" AND SHE SAID, "YES, IT WAS AN EPISIOTOMY."

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     SO I'M GLAD THAT WE'VE SUBSEQUENTLY GOTTEN IT STRAIGHTENED OUT THAT IT WAS AN EPIDURAL.
A     IT WAS A STEROID EPIDURAL. THEY STICK A NEEDLE INTO THE NERVE ROOT AND PUT SOME STEROID IN THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
Q     I WOULD HATE TO SEE HOW YOU WOULD FEEL TODAY IF IT WAS AN EPISIOTOMY.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     JUDGE, TELL ME ABOUT THE EPIDURAL. WHEN YOU HAVE IT, THE PURPOSE IS TO RELIEVE PAIN, I TAKE IT?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     BUT THEY MAKE AN INSERTION, THEY PUT IN SOME TYPE OF PAIN-RELIEVER; IS THAT A ONE-TIME THING, AND THEN ONCE YOU LEAVE THERE---
A     IT LASTS THEORETICALLY SIX OR SEVEN WEEKS, BUT IT LASTS FOR ME ABOUT FOUR WEEKS THAT I AM SOMEWHAT FREE OF PAIN. I TAKE ABOUT 9 TYLENOL OR IBUPROFIN A DAY.
Q     AND THESE ARE NON-CODEINE MEDICATIONS.
A     NON-CODEINE; I DON'T TAKE ANY DRUGS. IT RELIEVES THE PAIN FOR ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE WEEKS, AND THEN I HAVE A WEEK OR TWO OF FAIRLY SEVERE PAIN. AND THAT'S JUST OCCURRED DURING THIS CAMPAIGN WHEN I HAVE TO COME OVER HERE AND STAND ON MY FEET.
Q     RIGHT.
A     THE DOCTOR ALSO SAYS THAT THE TENSION OF THE CAMPAIGN CAN CONTRIBUTE SOMEWHAT TO IT.
Q     DOES THE EPIDURAL IMPACT YOUR CAPABILITIES AT ALL FOR THAT FOUR OR FIVE-WEEK PERIOD,---
A     NO.
Q     ---THE PAIN MEDICATION?
A     NO, YOU CAN'T TELL YOU HAVE HAD IT. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. THEY GIVE YOU SIX MILD PAIN PILLS FOR THE 48 HOURS.
Q     WHAT IS SHUNTED INTO YOUR BODY? WHAT MEDICATION?
A     REALLY, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S A NON-NARCOTIC. IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR THINKING ABILITY.
Q     DISCUSSING EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, AS I WAS WITH JUDGE SHAW, WHAT ARE YOUR RULES IN THAT AREA?
A     I HAVE A VERY SIMPLE RULE, I JUST SAY I CAN'T TALK TO YOU, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT. IT'S AN EASY THING TO SAY AFTER YOU'VE SAID IT ABOUT 100 TIMES.
Q     AND WHEN DOES THAT RULE APPLY? WHEN DOES THAT RULE APPLY? IS IT FROM THE TIME THE CASE IS DOCKETED ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE END, OR?
A     ANY TIME YOU ARE CONSIDERING A CASE, I MEAN IF IT'S NOT DISPOSED OF. VERY OFTEN AFTER THE OPINION IS WRITTEN AND ONE THING AND ANOTHER, AND THE PREVAILING ATTORNEY WILL SAY, "JUDGE THAT WAS A SPLENDID OPINION," AND THE LOSING ATTORNEY WILL THINK THE OPPOSITE.
Q     AND THAT'S, AS YOU SAY, AFTER 100 TIMES THAT GETS TO BE EASY; BUT SUPPOSE I'M JUDGE EPPES, AND I'VE DECIDED THIS CASE ON THE LOWER LEVEL, AND I CALL YOU UP AND SAY, "MR. CHIEF JUDGE, I HEAR YOU GOT MY CASE UP THERE. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THIS ISSUE, ABOUT THAT ISSUE?" WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THAT?
A     I HAVE BEEN A COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE FOR 10 YEARS AND I HAVE NOT HAD A TRIAL LAWYER CALL ME.
Q     A TRIAL JUDGE?
A     YES, SIR. I HAVE NOT--I MEAN A TRIAL JUDGE. AND LAWYERS ARE VERY RESPECTFUL TO JUDGES. THEY DON'T TRY.
Q     SO YOU WOULD FIND IT INAPPROPRIATE TO EVEN TALK TO THE TRIAL JUDGE AT ANY POINT DURING---
A     I WOULD NOT TALK TO HIM. I DON'T THINK I WOULD TALK WITH ANYBODY ABOUT IT. NOW WE TALK WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEM, JUST AMONG OURSELVES.
Q     YOU ARE SAYING WITHIN THE COURT OF APPEALS SYSTEM?
A     YES, WITHIN THE COURT OF APPEALS. WE GET IN THERE AND SOMETIMES WE TALK, YOU'VE SEEN US DO IT, FOR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS IN RIGHT HEATED DISCUSSIONS. BUT WE CAN'T TALK TO THE SUPREME COURT. WE WOULD NOT TALK TO THE TRIAL JUDGE; WOULD NOT TALK TO THE ATTORNEYS. IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S NOT DONE, AND SO IT DOESN'T CREATE A PROBLEM.
Q     JUDGE, IN TERMS OF GIFTS, WE HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSION WITH ALL THE OTHER JUDGE APPLICANTS TODAY ON THAT ISSUE, AS WELL; WHAT IS YOUR PERSONAL RULE ON GIFTS AND SOCIAL---
A     WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE GIFTS AFTER THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. WE USED TO GET SOMETIMES A CAKE, OR A HAM, OR A BOTTLE OF LIQUOR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q     HOW ABOUT THE SOCIAL HOSPITALITY?
A     GENERALLY MOST OF THE COURT GIVES IT TO THE SALVATION ARMY NOW.
Q     HOW ABOUT SOCIAL HOSPITALITY?
A     I ASSOCIATE WITH ABOUT A DOZEN ATTORNEYS.
Q     JUDGE, WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS WHERE THEY PAY YOUR BILL OR TAB FOR DINNER.
A     I WOULD NEVER LET A JUDGE--A LAWYER PAY MY BILL. I HAVE EATEN IN THE HOMES OF SEVERAL LAWYERS. I INVARIABLY PAY THE DEBT BACK; I INVARIABLY INVITE THEM BACK. I HAVE BEEN INVITED TO THE MOUNTAINS MANY TIMES BY LAWYERS, AND I HAVE REFUSED TO GO. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, JEANETTE AND I HAVE GONE UP THERE, SPENT THE NIGHT IN A MOTEL AND THEN PLAYED BRIDGE THE NEXT DAY. WE LIKE TO PLAY BRIDGE. AND, WELL, AN ILLUSTRATION, SHE PLAYS TOURNAMENT BRIDGE AND SHE WENT DOWN TO A TOURNAMENT IN MYRTLE BEACH HERE A WEEK OR TWO AGO, AND LEWIS CROMER WAS DOWN THERE AND ONE OR TWO OTHER LAWYERS, AND WE PLAYED BRIDGE, AND WE TALKED, AND THEY DRANK THE LIQUOR. I LIMIT MYSELF TO ONE DRINK A DAY, AND USUALLY DON'T TAKE THAT, AND THAT'S ONCE A WEEK MAYBE. BUT WE PLAYED BRIDGE.
Q     SO, JUDGE, YOUR RULE PRETTY MUCH IS THAT YOU DON'T ACCEPT SOCIAL HOSPITALITY, UNLESS IT'S RECIPROCATED, FROM ANY ATTORNEY, WHETHER THERE'S A CASE PENDING OR NOT?
A     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q     THAT IS THE RULE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO APPLY AND---
A     THE ONLY PERSON THAT I LET BUY ME--LAWYER THAT I LET BUY ME A MEAL IS MY SON. I ASKED JUSTICE TOAL WHAT SHE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, AND SHE SAID, "WELL, I SLEEP WITH A LAWYER."

(LAUGHTER.)

A     AND, OF COURSE, JOHN HAS PAID FOR A MEAL FOR ME.
Q     JUDGE, PLEDGES, THIS COMMITTEE HAS INSTRUCTED THIS COUNSEL TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT PLEDGES THAN HAVE EVER BEEN ASKED BEFORE.
A     I HAVE BEEN SURPRISED AT SOME OF THE ANSWERS THAT I HAVE HEARD; SO, YOU ASK ME THE QUESTIONS. MY ANSWERS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT.
Q     ALL RIGHT. THEY TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BEST THING FOR ANYONE TO EVEN GET CLOSE TO THE LINE OF SEEKING A PLEDGE UNTIL THE SCREENING PROCESS IS OVER.
A     I AGREE WITH THAT. I HAVE NOT ASKED ANYBODY FOR A PLEDGE, WOULD NOT ASK ANYBODY FOR A PLEDGE, HAVE NOT DIRECTLY SOLICITED A PLEDGE. AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE MANY, MANY FRIENDS AMONG THE BAR; AND I HAVE, DURING THE PROCESS IN PREPARING FOR THE CAMPAIGN, I ASKED MANY OF THEM IF THEY WOULD HELP, AND I THINK MAYBE HUNDREDS OF THEM ARE.
Q     LET ME ASK THIS, JUDGE, ON THAT SUBJECT THAT YOU JUST BRING UP: LAWYER A. FROM ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINA, A VERY WELL-RESPECTED ATTORNEY, WELL-KNOWN, COMES BEFORE YOUR COURT FROM TIME TO TIME, MAY EVEN HAVE A CASE PENDING NOW; YOU ASK HIS HELP, YOU ASK HIM TO WRITE YOU A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION---
A     I THINK THAT WOULD BE OUTRAGEOUSLY UNETHICAL.
Q     LET ME ASK YOU ONE THAT I THINK I ALREADY KNOW YOUR ANSWER, BUT LET ME ASK IT. AN ATTORNEY COMES TO ARGUE A CASE BEFORE YOUR COURT; AFTER THE ORAL ARGUMENT IS OVER-- AND THESE ARE JUST FACTUAL SCENARIOS--WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE IF YOU ASKED THAT ATTORNEY TO COME INTO YOUR CHAMBERS RIGHT AFTER THE ARGUMENT AND DISCUSS THE RACE?
A     I THINK THAT WOULD BE OUTRAGEOUSLY UNETHICAL, OUTRAGEOUSLY UNETHICAL.
Q     REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT ATTORNEY WAS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, OR WHETHER HE WAS JUST A PRIVATE PRACTITIONER?
A     I HAVE FRIENDS THAT ARE ATTORNEYS THAT I LOVE TO DEATH, AND THEY LOVE ME TO DEATH, BUT I THINK TO ASK SOMEBODY TO COME INTO YOUR CHAMBERS AND ASK FOR SUPPORT WOULD BE OUTRAGEOUSLY UNETHICAL.
Q     WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT, JUDGE?
A     THIS IS WRONG WITH IT, MIKE: YOU ARE A LAWYER, ED'S A LAWYER HERE, JOHN'S A LAWYER. A JUDGE ASKS A LAWYER INTO HIS CHAMBERS, WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND FOR ME TO ASK A LAWYER WHILE HE IS IN MY CHAMBERS, AND I'M SITTING BEHIND THAT DESK AS A JUDGE, WOULD BE AN OUTRAGEOUSLY UNETHICAL THING TO DO. I WOULDN'T DO IT. I DON'T THINK ANY JUDGE ON MY COURT WOULD. AND I'M QUITE CONFIDENT THAT BILL HOWELL WOULDN'T.
Q     YES, SIR. JUDGE, DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR CAMPAIGN FOR ELECTION AS CHIEF JUDGE, YOU'VE SOUGHT ADVICE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS TO WHAT TYPE OF SOCIAL ACTIVITIES YOU COULD ENGAGE IN WITH MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND NOT CROSS THE LINE OF SEEKING---
A     I THINK I AM THE ONLY PERSON THAT DID THAT. I WANTED AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT--(PAUSE)---
Q     TELL ME WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS. WHAT CAN YOU AND CANNOT DO?
A     WELL, AT FIRST WHEN I FIRST--WHEN THIS THING FIRST BEGAN A YEAR AGO, I EVEN WONDERED IF WE COULD COME OVER HERE AND TALK TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. I ASKED TOM POPE WHETHER IT WAS PERMISSIBLE, AND I QUESTIONED THAT VERY MUCH. I STILL QUESTION WHETHER IT'S RIGHT TO, YOU KNOW, CRASH THESE LIQUOR PARTIES THEY HAVE UP HERE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND I WAS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; I AM NOT A TEA-TOTALER. BUT EVERY OTHER JUDGE, YOU COME UP HERE AND THEY ARE HANGING AROUND THE GATE UP THERE LIKE A BUNCH OF, YOU KNOW, CAMPAIGN PEOPLE; AND I HAVE DONE SOME OF IT. FRANKLY, IT'S OFFENSIVE TO ME, AND I DON'T LIKE IT. AND I DON'T THINK--I KNOW JUDGE HOWELL AND WE HAVE TOLD EACH OTHER THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S OFFENSIVE TO BOTH OF US, THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO IT. I DON'T LIKE IT. I DON'T MIND TALKING, GOING TO A LEGISLATOR'S OFFICE. I DON'T LIKE STANDING OUT SHAKING HANDS. I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE DEMEANING TO A PERSON WITH THE POSITION THAT I AM IN, BUT WE HAVE TO DO IT.
Q     WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF THIS COMMITTEE OR SOME PORTION RECOMMENDED A CHANGE IN THE RULES THAT YOU COULD NOT EVEN ASK FOR CONSIDERATION UNTIL SCREENING WAS OVER?
A     WELL, IF YOU GAVE US ABOUT A MONTH, IF YOU GAVE US ABOUT A MONTH TO CAMPAIGN, I THINK THE RULE OUGHT TO BE THIS, THAT YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT HELP IN YOUR ELECTION. AND THEN I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE GIVEN 30 DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO CAMPAIGN. A JUDGE HAS THE REPUTATION ALL OVER THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. THE BAR EITHER LIKES HIM OR DISLIKES HIM. AND HE CAN DESIGN HIS CAMPAIGN FOR A 30-DAY CAMPAIGN, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT'S OPENED UP. AND I WOULD RATHER IT BE THAT WAY. I HAVE BEEN--YOU KNOW THIS THING HAS GONE ON FOR MORE THAN A YEAR-AND-A- HALF NOW.
Q     JUDGE, DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS OR 6 MONTHS WHEN THIS RACE HAS REALLY BEEN GOING ON, TELL US WHAT TYPES OF THINGS YOU HAVE ENGAGED IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE YOU GOT AMPLE CONSIDERATION BY THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. YOU OBVIOUSLY SOUGHT---
A     I HAVE DONE A LOT OF IT. OVER THE PERIOD OF 7 YEARS I HAVE DEVELOPED FRIENDS IN EVERY AREA OF THE STATE. I HAVE RELATIVES IN EVERY AREA OF THE STATE. AND I HAVE DESIGNED A CAMPAIGN THAT SEEKS THAT HELP. AND WHEN THE TIME COMES, I WILL HAVE THEM HELP ME.
Q     ALL RIGHT, I GUESS MY QUESTION GOES TOWARDS---
A     THAT'S DONE BY EVERY CANDIDATE.
Q     WHY ASK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HIS OPINION? - I MEAN WHAT TYPES OF THINGS---
A     WELL, THAT WAS OUT OF AN OUNCE OF PRECAUTION. A JUDGE HAS TO CONDUCT HIMSELF IN A WAY AS TO NOT EVEN GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY; AND YOU AND I ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT IN A MINUTE. I WROTE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ASKED HIM HOW FAR I COULD GO, TO GIVE ME A LEGAL OPINION ON IT. HE SAID, WELL, YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY TO LUNCH IF YOU WANTED TO; YOU COULD PAY THE BILL; YOU COULD NOT ASK FOR THE VOTE. AND, SO, I WROTE THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE, THE SOUTH CAROLINA ETHICS COMMITTEE AND ASKED THEM; AND THEY ALL AGREED THAT I COULD DO WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD ME TO DO. THE REASON I DID THAT WAS TO CLEAR MY CONSCIENCE ABOUT HOW FAR I COULD GO. I THINK I'M THE ONLY JUDGE WHO DID THAT.
Q     AND, JUDGE, ON YOUR SCREENING P.D.Q., YOU LIST EXPENDITURES OF ABOUT $834; AND THEN ON YOUR ETHICS COMMITTEE REPORTS, WHICH YOU UPDATED SINCE YOUR P.D.Q. WAS FILED, YOU LISTED EXPENDITURES OF ABOUT $1,030. HOW MUCH OF THAT HAVE YOU SPENT FOR THESE LUNCHES OR MEALS TO---
A     I HAVE SPENT, SO FAR, MAYBE $250 FOR MEALS.
Q     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY MEALS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED WHERE YOU HAVE NOT PAID THE BILL, BUT OTHER FOLKS HAVE---
A     MY SON PAID A BILL ONE TIME.
Q     HAVE YOU---
A     AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT FOR MY SON TO DO ANYTHING.
Q     YES, SIR, BUT IN TERMS OF--AND ONE REASON I ASK THIS, AND PLAN TO ASK IT OF ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES, AND THE ONLY REASON I DIDN'T ASK JUDGE SHAW IS THAT HE IS UNOPPOSED-- IS WOULD IT BE IMPROPER IF YOU ENCOURAGED ATTORNEYS TO BAND TOGETHER AND HOST LUNCHEONS?
A     I THINK THAT WOULD BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. IN MY LAST CAMPAIGN, SENATOR SALEEBY WAS NICE ENOUGH TO THROUGH HIS MEMBERSHIP UP AT THE SUMMIT CLUB, BUT I PAID HIM FOR EVERY MEAL. I BELIEVE I DID, DIDN'T I, ED?
SENATOR SALEEBY: I DON'T REMEMBER. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME RULES THEN. WE COULD GET OUT AND HAVE MEALS AND--(PAUSE)---AND DIFFERENT THINGS.
SENATOR MOORE: DON'T YOU RECKON THAT ED HAD THE SAME RULES? - YOU PAID.

(LAUGHTER.)

SENATOR SALEEBY: THE LAST TIME I ATE WITH SENATOR MOORE HE AND LAND STUCK IT TO ME.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     SO, JUDGE, YOU WOULD CONSIDER IT TO BE IMPROPER FOR A JUDGE TO RELY UPON PRIVATE ATTORNEYS, PRIVATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS, TO HOST LUNCHEONS---
A     I WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT. I HAVE HAD THEM OFFER THAT. I HAVE HAD BANKERS OFFER IT, AND I HAVE DECLINED.
Q     AND THE REASON I---
A     AND I INTEND TO CONTINUE TO DECLINE.
Q     THE REASON I ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU GO THAT COURSE, WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS THAT YOU HAVE CANDIDATES WHO GET TO BE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF CERTAIN INTEREST GROUPS, AND THOSE FOLKS HOST LUNCHEONS, DINNERS, WHATEVER, HAVE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THERE; NOT NECESSARILY SEEK THEIR PLEDGES, JUST TO SEEK CONSIDERATION, AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY RAISE AN ISSUE OF APPEARANCE.
A     IT'S AN EASY THING FOR A JUDGE TO ABUSE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN ATTORNEY AND HIMSELF. IT'S AN EASY THING. YOU HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THAT.
Q     JUDGE, IN YOUR 1979 SCREENING YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD A MARTINDALE HUBBLE RATING OF, I BELIEVE B.G.
A     B.G.
Q     YES, THAT WAS THE LAST RATING YOU PROBABLY HAD WITH MARTINDALE HUBBLE.
A     YES.
Q     WE MENTIONED EARLIER THE SUBJECT OF DISSENTS, IT WAS 27 DISSENTS, RATHER THAN 47. OUT OF 208 OPINIONS, YOU WROTE THE MAJORITY, WITH 208, 27 DISSENTS AND TWO CONCURRENCES. AS CHIEF JUDGE, IS YOUR OBLIGATION TO SEEK UNANIMITY ON THE COURT?
A     WELL, WE ALWAYS TRY TO AGREE. WE ALWAYS TRY TO AGREE, MIKE. I AM IN A SITUATION WHERE MY BACKGROUND WAS TAKING CARE OF POOR PEOPLE AND UNDERDOGS IN THIS WORLD, AND NONE OF MY OTHER JUDGES HAVE A SIMILAR BACKGROUND.
Q     RIGHT.
A     AND IF YOU WILL NOTICE ON THIS CASE THE DISSENT I WROTE IN THE WAL-MART CASE WAS SURELY BECAUSE I FELT THAT THIS WAS A SITUATION IN WHICH THE POOR MAN, HIS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JUDGE. YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH MY DISSENTS, AND VERY OFTEN I DISSENT IN CORPORATE MATTERS AND REAL ESTATE MATTERS, AND I THINK I HAVE SOME UNUSUAL EXPERTISE IN THOSE AREAS.
Q     I ASKED JUDGE SHAW, AND I WILL REFER BACK TO MAKE SURE I ASKED, ABOUT USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES IN YOUR CAMPAIGN, HOW WOULD YOU TRY TO BE CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DIDN'T MIX THIS CAMPAIGN---
A     NUMBER ONE, I HAVE TWO SETS OF STATIONERY. ONE OF THEM DOESN'T MENTION THE FACT THAT I AM THE JUDGE, AND THAT IS WHAT I'VE USED. I HAVE OTHER STATIONERY THAT I THINK PROBABLY DOES SHOW THAT I AM A JUDGE, AND I HAVEN'T USED ANYTHING THAT REFLECTS THE FACT THAT I AM A JUDGE. NUMBER TWO, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR ANY JUDGE TO ASK ANY COURT PERSONNEL TO SUPPORT HIM. I THINK IT WOULD BE A HIGHLY FLAGRANT THING TO DO. I HAVE NOT DONE IT.
Q     JUDGE, IF YOU WERE TO FIND OUT THE COURT EMPLOYEES, AND I DON'T SPEAK OF THIS WITH ANY FACTUAL PREDICATE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT JUST AS A HYPOTHETICAL, IF A COURT EMPLOYEE, YOU FOUND OUT, WAS BECOMING ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN YOUR CAMPAIGN AND NOT ONLY WAS HE A COURT EMPLOYEE, BUT HE WAS USING PUBLIC TIME. HE WAS ON THE CLOCK CAMPAIGNING, WHAT WOULD YOU---
A     I HAD THAT, AND HERE IS WHAT I DID WITH IT: IT WAS W.J. HUNTER, WHO IS FROM DARLINGTON; HE'S AN AFRICAN AMERICAN, AND WORKS FOR THE COURT, AND I FOUND HIM OVER HERE ONE TIME, AND I TOLD OUR CLERK OF COURT THAT WAS VERY, VERY OFFENSIVE TO ME AND THAT IT WAS NOT TO HAPPEN AGAIN. I TOLD HER TO TELL HIM BECAUSE THAT IS WHO HE WORKED FOR. AND I TOLD HIM THAT MYSELF.
Q     SO W.J'S PRESENCE OVER HERE WAS NOT ANYTHING THAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR, IT WAS SOMETHING HE DID---
A     AS A MATTER OF FACT, I ORDERED HIM NOT TO DO IT AGAIN, AND I HAVE A RECORD OF IT IN THE COURT.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     WITH THE CLERK OF COURT.
Q     JUDGE, ONE MATTER YOU ALLUDED TO EARLIER, AND THAT'S THE MATTER OF WHEN DO YOU NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF IN A CASE, AND YOU TALKED ABOUT IN THE CONTEXT OF APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. I HAD MENTIONED WHEN WE WERE SCREENING OR DISCUSSING JUDGE SHAW'S APPLICATION EARLIER THAT THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE HAS ASKED US TO DO A PRETTY THOROUGH STUDY OF YOUR FINANCIAL HOLDINGS TO FIND OUT IF YOU HAD EVER RULED IN CASES WHERE YOU HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST. AND JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BRINGING THE COMMITTEE UP TO DATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE CONVERSATION YOU AND I HAVE ALREADY HAD, YOU INDICATED IN YOUR PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT YOU OWNED THROUGH AT LEAST AS A LIFE BENEFICIARY, 800 SHARES OF WAL-MART. THE REASON THAT I MENTION THE TERM "LIFE BENEFICIARY" IS THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR PERSONAL FINANCES ARE ARRANGED SUCH THAT YOU RECEIVE THE INCOME FROM THESE STOCKS AND OTHER SECURITIES AND OTHER HOLDINGS---
A     IT'S AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST. YOU KNOW, AS I TOLD YOU, WHEN MY FIRST WIFE DIED, I GAVE EVERYTHING I HAVE--I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
Q     OTHER THAN THE INCOME WHICH YOU RECEIVE---
A     OTHER THAN THE INCOME.
Q     RIGHT.
A     I SET UP AND I GAVE MY CHILDREN A GOOD BIT, AND I RESERVED WHAT I GAVE THE CHILDREN APPROXIMATELY 7 OR $800,000 AND HAVE GIVEN PART OF THAT OVER TIME AND IT'S IN AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST. I DON'T OWN ANY OF THAT STOCK. I RECEIVE AFTER TAXES AND EXPENSES ABOUT FIVE DOLLARS AND A QUARTER IN A MONTH FROM WAL-MART STOCK.
Q     JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT STOCKS ARE CONTAINED IN YOUR PORTFOLIO?
A     I HAVE NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER OVER IT.
Q     WHO MAKES THE---
A     AS A MATTER OF FACT, MY DAUGHTER IS VERY SHREWD IN ASSESSING THE VALUE OF STOCKS AND WHATNOT.
Q     SO SHE IS THE PERSON WHO PICKS THE STOCKS?
A     AND MY SON; THEY MIGHT ASK ME, BUT---
Q     BUT THE REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU AS TO WHAT STOCK HOLDINGS---
A     I AM REQUIRED BY THE RULES TO KNOW THAT.
Q     RIGHT. SO YOU WERE AWARE THAT YOU OWNED WAL-MART STOCK?
A     NO, SIR, I DO NOT OWN IT. IT'S OWNED BY MY SON AND DAUGHTER IN AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST, BUT I HAVE AN INTEREST IN $104 A YEAR.
Q     BUT YOU ARE THE LIFE BENEFICIARY OF ANY INCOME PRODUCED BY THAT?
A     YES. I DON'T TAKE IT, BUT I HAVE A LIFE INCOME.
Q     JUDGE, THE 800 SHARES THAT YOU OWN REALLY IS A VERY SMALL PART OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF WAL-MART, BUT THE---
A     IT'S SOMETHING LIKE ONE TWO-HUNDRED-AND-TWENTY-FIVE-MILLIONTH OF ONE PERCENT.
Q     YES, SIR, AND I GUESS THAT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE TO THE LAYMAN IF HE WERE DECIDING IF THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE, BUT RULE, I THINK IT'S 504 SAYS THAT A JUDGE SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM PARTICIPATING IN A MATTER WHERE HE HAS--(PAUSE, VIEWING DOCUMENT)--WHERE HE HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST. AND IT DOESN'T USE THE WORDS "DE MINIMIS FINANCIAL INTEREST." IT DOESN'T USE THE WORDS "SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL INTEREST." IT JUST SAYS "FINANCIAL INTEREST." AND, IN FACT, FINANCIAL INTEREST IS DEFINED BY THE APPELLATE COURT RULES TO MEAN OWNERSHIP OF A LEGAL OR EQUITABLE INTEREST, WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY INCLUDE A LIFE INTEREST, HOWEVER SMALL, OR A RELATIONSHIP AS A DIRECTOR, ADVISOR, OR OTHER ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE AFFAIRS OF A PARTY.
A     IT'S QUALIFIED. LET ME TELL YOU, WHEN I---
Q     I WANT TO BRING THE COMMITTEE UP TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE.
A     YES.
Q     THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD YESTERDAY AS TO WHETHER THAT WAS QUALIFIED BY THE WORDS, WHETHER IT HAD TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY--WHETHER ANY DECISION YOU WOULD MAKE AND YOUR INTEREST WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING, THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT YOU FIND TO BE TIED TO FINANCIAL INTEREST. I MENTIONED TO YOU YESTERDAY THAT ALL LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP THAT I COULD FIND, INCLUDING DECISIONS MADE BY THE OPINION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE CODES OF CONDUCT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING SOME DECISIONS LABELED GENERALLY IN RE. CEMENT AND CONCRETE ANTITRUST LITIGATION DIVORCED THOSE TWO TERMS, FINANCIAL INTEREST AND LIKELY TO BE LIFE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING. THEY ADOPTED A ZERO TOLERANCE STANDARD. I ALSO MENTIONED TO YOU YESTERDAY THAT THE A.B.A. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED IN THIS STATE DEPARTS FROM THAT STANDARD. IT HAS MORE OF A DE MINIMIS APPROACH WHERE THEY ALLOW A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TOLERANCE. BUT AT LEAST THE STANDARD, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND MOST COMMENTATORS UNDERSTAND IT IN SOUTH CAROLINA, IS THAT THERE IS A ZERO TOLERANCE - IF YOU OWN A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A STOCK, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY IN ANY MATTER BEFORE THE COURT. IT AFFECTS THAT OWNERSHIP. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WERE TWO CASES DECIDED BY YOU WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS. ONE WAS UNITED DOMINION REALTY TRUST VERSUS WAL-MART STORES, INC., DECIDED ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 1992, AND VANESSA D. SMITH VERSUS WAL-MART STORES, INC., WHICH WAS FILED ON FEBRUARY 22, 1993, BOTH OF WHICH OCCURRED DURING YOUR PERIOD OF OWNERSHIP AS VERIFIED BY YOUR BROKER'S RECORDS, IN WHICH, AT LEAST IN ONE OF THE CASES, I RECALL YOU DISSENTED AND RULED AGAINST WAL-MART, BUT THAT WASN'T CONTEMPLATED BY THE RULE, THE RESULT.
A     I RULED AGAINST WAL-MART IN BOTH CASES.
Q     BUT THE TEST OF THE RULE IS THAT IT'S AN ABSOLUTE ONE, A FLAT PROHIBITION.
A     MIKE, LET ME TELL YOU MY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT, ALL OF US HAVE STUDIED THESE JUDICIAL CANONS OF ETHICS, AND WE HAVE --THIS WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME I SERVED ON THE CASE: WE ARE LIKE CAESAR'S WIFE, WE CAN'T EVEN GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT IT WAS CHIEF JUDGE SANDERS' UNDERSTANDING, THAT, NUMBER ONE, IT WAS A QUESTION OF YOUR OWN CONSCIENCE AS TO WHETHER YOUR CONDUCT IN SERVING WOULD CREATE AN IMPRESSION REGARDING YOUR IMPARTIALITY. YOU HAD TO AVOID SUSPICION OF THAT. I HAVE A $5.25 A MONTH INCOME FROM THIS STOCK. I THOUGHT THE RULE, AND EVIDENTLY FROM WHAT YOU SAY, AND I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE CADRE RESEARCH THAT I HAVE DONE THAT THE FEDERAL RULE DOESN'T EVEN ALLOW A DE MINIMIS INTEREST, BUT THE NEW STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY 25 STATES, I UNDERSTOOD AND I SINCERELY THOUGHT THAT WAS THE STANDARD BY WHICH I WAS BOUND. I AM EMBARRASSED THAT THIS CAME UP, BUT I WANT TO SAY AGAIN THAT I DO NOT OWN THE STOCK. I GAVE THAT AND OTHER MONEY, ABOUT 700,000 IN THESE TWO TRUSTS, AND OTHER MONEY TO MY CHILDREN AND HAVE GIVEN MONEY TO MY WIFE. I HAVE A $5.25 INCOME FROM THAT WAL-MART STOCK, AND IT WAS MY OPINION THAT IF THE WORLD KNEW IT, THAT NOBODY COULD SAY THAT IT CREATED A SUSPICION OF IMPROPRIETY. THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT AT THE TIME. OBVIOUSLY, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN ERROR. IF I AM, I DON'T THINK I CREATED ANY BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE I DECIDED AGAINST WAL-MART IN BOTH CASES. ONE CASE, I WROTE A DISSENT. THERE WAS A CASE IN WHICH THE WAL-MART WAS PUTTING SOME SOLVENT ON THE FLOOR AND IT MELTED WAX ON THE FLOOR AND A PERSON SLIPPED ON IT, AND TWO JUDGES DECIDED THAT WAL-MART WAS NOT LIABLE, AND I WROTE A DISSENT SAYING THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. IF I MADE AN ERROR, I APOLOGIZE AND I AM EMBARRASSED BY IT, BUT I ASSURE YOU OF ONE THING, I'M THE ONLY JUDGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, I'VE JUST AFTER--THE FIRST TWO YEARS I WAS ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, I DISQUALIFIED MYSELF FROM EVERY CASE COMING FROM DARLINGTON COUNTY. I AM THE ONLY JUDGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA WHO DOES THAT. I AM QUITE SENSITIVE TO THE PROPRIETY UNDER WHICH I HAVE TO LIVE. THIS THING HAS BEEN MOST EMBARRASSING, THIS $5.25 HAS CAUSED ME TO AGONIZE A LOT IN THE LAST 24 HOURS.
Q     AND, JUDGE, I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I GUESS ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THESE HEARINGS IS NOT ONLY FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAS GONE ON, AND THE FACTS, IT'S TO LET EVERY JUDGE THAT WILL COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE IN THE FUTURE UNDERSTAND THE TYPE OF APPROACH THAT THIS COMMITTEE WANTS TO TAKE TO ITS REVIEW, AND IT TAKES IT VERY SERIOUSLY. AND THE RULES THAT GOVERN EVERY PRIVATE CITIZEN, THE BLACK-AND-WHITE OF THE LAW, WHERE YOU SIT IN JUDGMENT OF WHETHER FOLKS COMPLY WITH THE BLACK-AND-WHITE, THIS COMMITTEE IS IN THE UNENVIABLE POSITION OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUDGES HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE BLACK-AND-WHITE OF THE LAW. AND UNFORTUNATELY IN YOUR CASE, THE BLACK-AND-WHITE OF THE LAW AS ACCEPTED BY EVERY COMMENTATOR I CAN FIND, IS THAT IS A ZERO TOLERANCE.
JUDGE, ONE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK YOU, YOU INDICATE THAT YOU REALLY HAVE NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THIS. YOUR BROKER'S STATEMENT, WHICH YOU FORWARDED TO ME AS PART OF YOUR PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT, INDICATES AS JOHN P. GARDNER, SR., LIFE TENANT, HARRIET G. WATSON AND JOHN P. GARDNER, JR., REMAINDERMEN, AND IT ALSO INDICATES A LUCY LEE A. GARDNER, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT HER DESIGNATION IS.
A     SHE WAS MY FIRST WIFE, AND SOME OF THAT STOCK I INHERITED A LIFE ESTATE IN, AND SOME OF IT IS MY MONEY THAT I GAVE, SET IN A TRUST FOR THE CHILDREN WHEN I REMARRIED.
Q     IT INDICATES THAT 800 SHARES HAD A CARRYING VALUE OF INVESTMENTS, WHICH I TAKE PROBABLY TO BE YOUR PURCHASE VALUE, OF $12,166 WITH A MARKET VALUE OF $26,000.
A     ABOUT $40 A SHARE.
Q     RIGHT. MORE THAN JUST A LITTLE BIT OF STOCK THOUGH.
A     NO, LET'S GET THE THING IN PROPER FOCUS, MIKE. THAT STOCK IS OWNED BY MY CHILDREN, AND IT PAYS 13 CENTS A SHARE DIVIDEND. THE ONLY INTEREST I HAVE IS THAT STOCK PAYS $104 A YEAR, AND AFTER TAXES AND EXPENSES, I RECEIVE $63.
Q     BUT, JUDGE, ON YOUR CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT, YOU LIST UNDER "SECURITIES" A BROKERAGE MARGIN ACCOUNT BY A.G. EDWARDS, WHICH IS THIS ACCOUNT, AND YOU LIST A ONE-THIRD INTEREST IN IT, HOLDING A VALUE OF $130,869.
A     AS YOU KNOW, THAT IS IN SOMEBODY'S ELSE'S HANDWRITING, AND I TOLD YOU THAT, AND I TOLD YOU THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY DID THAT I DIDN'T DO.
Q     I KNOW, BUT, JUDGE, I CAN'T HELP THAT THEY DID IT. YOU FORWARDED IT IN AS A REPRESENTATION OF YOUR SCHEDULE HERE.
A     IF YOU WANT TO GET DOWN TO IT, A LIFE ESTATE, YOU HAVE SOME PRESENT VALUE, YES. MY PRESENT VALUE WOULD BE ABOUT 60 SHARES OF WAL-MART, OR ABOUT $12,500.
Q     JUDGE, YOU HEARD JUDGE SHAW SAY EARLIER HOW HE, AT LEAST, INTERPRETED THIS RULE, AND I'M SURE THAT HE FEELS THAT WAY GENERALLY, AND CERTAINLY HAS THE BENEFIT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE, THAT HE IS ABLE TO SIT HERE TODAY WITHOUT THE SITUATION---
A     AND HE ALSO DISCUSSED IT EXTENSIVELY WITH ME AFTER YOU RAISED THIS POINT.
Q     DO YOU NOW AGREE WITH HIS APPLICATION?
A     MIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I DO OR NOT. I THINK THE DE MINIMIS RULE MIGHT BE APPLICABLE IN SOUTH CAROLINA. YOU CAME IN TO SEE ME AT 5:00 O'CLOCK YESTERDAY.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     I KNOW MY CONSCIENCE WAS ENTIRELY CLEAR. I KNOW I VOTED AGAINST WAL-MART. I KNOW MY INTEREST AMOUNTED TO FIVE DOLLARS AND A QUARTER A MONTH. RIGHT NOW I DO NOT FEEL THAT I HAVE DONE ANYTHING THAT WOULD GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. NOW SINCE YOU TOLD ME, IN THE FUTURE I WILL BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT ANYTHING THAT CAME UP.
Q     WELL, I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION.
A     AND I WILL GET--AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I INTEND TO GET AN ETHICAL OPINION ON THIS FROM THE COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE IT. I THINK THE RULE IN SOUTH CAROLINA IS A DE MINIMIS RULE, BUT THERE IS NO WAY FOR US TO PROVE THAT EXCEPT BY A CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WE COULD HAVE IN 72 HOURS IF YOU WANTED TO.
Q     JUDGE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T ARGUE WITH YOU THAT THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DETERMINED IN SOUTH CAROLINA. NOW LET ME BRIEF THE COMMITTEE WHY IT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED, AND YOU AND I BOTH UNDERSTAND THIS; THERE IS A BOARD OF JUDICIAL GRIEVANCES, AND ANY TIME THIS IS LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN DETERMINED, IT PROBABLY WILL HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THAT BODY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH NO REPORT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC; SO, THEY MAY HAVE DETERMINED THIS RULE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BUT EVERY BIT OF LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP WE CAN FIND IN SOUTH CAROLINA, THE LEADING CASES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ALL DETERMINE IT THE SAME WAY; SO,---
A     ALL FEDERAL CASES, MIKE.
Q     WELL, JUDGE, THE POINT IS MOST STATES HAVE THE SAME PROCESS OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. I THINK IF YOU ASK EVERY LAW PROFESSOR AT THE LAW SCHOOL THAT TEACHES JUDICIAL ETHICS, THEY WOULD AGREE THAT IT WAS A ZERO TOLERANCE RULE, AS WELL.
A     MAYBE. MAYBE. I MIGHT HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.
Q     JUDGE, I'M NOT--I GUESS THE REASON I ASKED THAT QUESTION IS NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE COMMITTEE, WHAT DETERMINATION ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE THE NEXT TIME YOU'RE FACED WITH A WAL-MART SITUATION?
A     WELL, NUMBER TWO, I WOULD NOT DO IT AGAIN WITHOUT GOING TO IMMEDIATELY DISCUSS AND GET AN ETHICAL OPINION ON IT. I'M GOING TO IMMEDIATELY ASK THE BAR ASSOCIATION FOR AN OPINION ON IT, MAINLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT WHAT I DID CANNOT BE CRITICIZED; BUT I MIGHT BE WRONG, AND I CONCEDE I MIGHT BE WRONG. I WOULD UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES HEAR A CASE INVOLVING WAL-MART, UNTIL I HAD AN OPINION TO THE EFFECT THAT MY INTEREST IS DE MINIMIS THAT IT DOES NOT CREATE A SUSPICION OF IMPROPRIETY ON MY PART. AND I THINK IT IS; DON'T YOU?
Q     YOU THINK IT'S WHAT?
A     SO DE MINIMIS.
Q     JUDGE, IT'S NOT MY OPINION, IT'S YOURS THAT COUNTS, AND THAT IS WHAT JUDGE SHAW SAID. I MEAN, IT'S HIS PERSONAL---
A     AFTER ALL, IT IS OUR CONSCIENCE, WHAT WE THINK.
Q     BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE BLACK-AND-WHITE LAW IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AT LEAST, IS THE ZERO TOLERANCE RULE.
A     I DON'T BELIEVE THAT, MIKE. WE DIFFER ON THAT.
Q     WELL, I BELIEVE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE THAT I CAN FIND WHO HAS WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT TENDS TO WEIGH ON THIS SIDE.
A     YOU MAY BE RIGHT, I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT. I DON'T WANT TO BE DOGMATIC ABOUT IT. I WILL SAY THIS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING OR EXCUSE ANYTHING, THAT IF THERE HAD BEEN JUST THE SLIGHTEST THOUGHT IN MY MIND THAT IT VIOLATED PROPRIETY FOR ME TO SERVE ON THAT CASE, I WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFIED MYSELF. AND I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION, AGAIN, TO THE FACT THAT I VOTED AGAINST WAL-MART IN BOTH CASES.
Q     BUT I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED TODAY THAT YOUR RESPONSE IS NOT "I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN, AND THE RULE IS A FAIR ONE." YOUR RESPONSE IS, "I WILL TAKE IT TO THE BAR. I WILL GET AN OPINION. I MAY OR MAY NOT DO IT AGAIN," WHEN---
A     WELL, LET ME QUALIFY THE THING.
A     I SAID I WOULD NOT DO IT. I WOULD GET AN ETHICAL OPINION AND UNLESS THE OPINION SAID THAT IT IN NO WAY CREATED IMPROPRIETY, I WOULD NOT DO IT. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
Q     DO YOU REMEMBER THE THREE THINGS THAT I READ OUT EARLIER FROM THE ARTICLE; ONE WAS THE MOTHER TEST, ONE WAS THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER TEST, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS SCRUTINY BY A SCREENING COMMITTEE TEST, HOW WILL IT LOOK? - EVEN IF I'M NOT RIGHT; TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT I'M WRONG AND THESE OTHER CASES SAY ABOUT THE BLACK-AND-WHITE NO TOLERANCE, ZERO TOLERANCE RULE ARE WRONG. THERE HAVE BEEN ENOUGH QUESTIONS AT LEAST TODAY BEFORE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE THAT I THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE CONVINCED THAT THE ZERO TOLERANCE RULE---
A     I AM EMBARRASSED TO DEATH OVER IT, AND I WOULD NOT DO IT AGAIN UNLESS THE COURTS CAME OUT AND SAID THAT THERE WAS NO IMPROPRIETY. I'M EMBARRASSED TO DEATH OVER IT. BUT I WILL SAY THIS, AGAIN, THAT IN ALL GOOD CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THAT'S BASICALLY THE THING, I FELT THAT THERE WAS NO IMPROPRIETY AT ALL ABOUT IT. AND I WILL SAY, AGAIN, I DECIDED AGAINST WAL-MART.
Q     JUDGE, MOVING ON TO QUESTION 13 ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, WHERE YOU DISCLOSE INCOME AND BENEFITS, YOU LIST SALARY AND EXPENSE ALLOWANCE OF $90,198.94.
A     I THINK THAT IS RIGHT. I CALLED UP STEVE GOOD AND ASKED HIM, AND I PUT DOWN WHAT HE SAID.
Q     YES, SIR. I WAS WONDERING JUST IN ORDER TO MAKE THE RECORD SPECIFIC, BECAUSE THEY ASK FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND TYPE OF INCOME, WOULD YOU MIND HAVING YOUR OFFICE JUST FORWARD OVER A BREAKDOWN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALARY AND EXPENSE?
A     $3,000 OF THAT IS EXPENSE, AND THE REST OF IT IS SALARY.
Q     OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER TYPE OF PER DIEM, MILEAGE, OR ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LISTED THERE?
A     I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PER DIEM MILEAGE, I DON'T THINK, IN THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. I HAVEN'T ASKED FOR ANY. I MOVED TO COLUMBIA. IT DOESN'T COST THE COURT A PENNY. MY WIFE OWNS THE HOME, AND I STAY IN THAT.
Q     SHE IS PROBABLY A PRETTY GOOD LANDLORD.
A     SHE'S A GOOD LANDLORD. SHE TREATS ME GOOD.
Q     JUDGE, IF YOU WOULD JUST HAVE YOUR OFFICE DOUBLE-CHECK THAT AND JUST FORWARD AN UPDATE; AND I PLAN TO ASK THAT QUESTION TO EVERYBODY TODAY THAT HASN'T BROKEN IT DOWN.
A     I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW $3,000 IS EXPENSE AND THE REST OF IT IS SALARY.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR MOORE.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

A     JUDGE GARDNER, EARLIER YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ON THE LUNCHES BUSINESS?
A     YES.
Q     DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT AVAILABLE FOR US?
A     THEY GAVE IT TO ME ORALLY, AND I, IN ORDER TO REDUCE IT TO WRITING, WROTE THEM A LETTER VERIFYING IT, AND SENT A COPY TO THE STATE ETHICS COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE, AND THE--WELL, THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE, AND THE STATE ETHICS COMMITTEE; AND SENATOR, I WILL BE GLAD TO SEND YOU A COPY OF THE LETTER THAT I WROTE.
Q     (DOCUMENT HANDED TO SENATOR MOORE BY MS. GOODMAN.) I HAVE GOT IT RIGHT HERE. THANK YOU.
A     DO THEY HAVE IT?
Q     YES.
A     I ASKED IF ANYBODY HAD ANY OTHER IDEAS OF WHAT I SAID IN THAT LETTER, AND I WANTED TO BE DOUBLY SURE THAT I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING IMPROPER.
SENATOR MOORE: THANK YOU, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
JUDGE GARDNER: THANK YOU, SENATOR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: IT SUITS ME TO TAKE A 10- MINUTE BREAK.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A SLIGHT BREAK OF 10 MINUTES, AND WE ARE GOING TO STICK RIGHT TO SCHEDULE. WE'LL BE BACK AT 4:00 AND GET CRANKED UP AND GOING.

(OFF THE RECORD FROM 3:50 P.M. UNTIL 4:00 P.M.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, WE WILL RECONVENE THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME, AND WE HAVE A QUORUM, BOTH BY PRESENCE, AND BY THE PROXIES THAT ARE HERE. THE NEXT CANDIDATE UP IS JUDGE WILLIAM HOWELL. JUDGE HOWELL, IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM TINDALL HOWELL, FIRST
BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL,
TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOUR, SIR, HAVE A SEAT. HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE WITH US, TOO.
A     DELIGHTED TO BE HERE.
Q     THE RECORD INDICATES YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS ON OCTOBER THE 16TH, 1990. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IS IT CORRECT?
A     I MADE A COUPLE OF CORRECTIONS. I ASSUME THEY HAVE A CORRECT COPY. I HAD MADE A MISTAKE OF, I HAD MY SON WORKING FOR S.C.N.B. AND IT'S LONG SINCE BEEN NATIONS BANK.
Q     STAFF INFORMS ME THAT THEY HAVE MADE THOSE CORRECTIONS IN OUR MANUALS. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE THAT YOU KNOW OF RIGHT THIS MOMENT THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NONE WHATSOEVER.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IT WILL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     William Tindall Howell
Home Address:                                         Business Address:
242 Overhill Drive                                 P. O. Box 168
Walterboro, SC 29488                         Walterboro, SC 29488

2.     He was born in Walterboro, South Carolina, on March 8, 1941. He is presently 52 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Susan Gail Dooley on August 23, 1964. He has three children: Lesli Peyton Howell Pryor, age 27 (employed at DSS, Walterboro, SC); William T., Jr., age 24 (operations officer, NationsBank); and John Asher, age 20 (student, Clemson University).

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended Clemson University, 1959-1963, B.S. Degree in Animal Husbandry; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1964-1967, J.D. Degree Cum Laude.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has met all requirements for CLE and met all Judicial Conferences.
1991 - Advanced evidence course at National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
In 1989 and 1990 he was speaker at annual Judicial Conferences; speaker at S. C. Defense Lawyers Association; on program of Charleston County Bar Association CLE in 1989; speaker at JCLE programs twice in 1985; member Clinical Faculty at Harvard Law School, teaching Trial Advocacy to 3rd year law students from 1981 to 1991. He was on the program to instruct new judges in 1990 and 1992.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He began practicing law in Walterboro, South Carolina with Thomas M. Howell, Jr., April 13, 1967. In June, 1969, he began practicing law with Gerald C. Smoak in partnership, the partnership added additional partners, Auburn J. Bridge and Lee Ray Moody and associate Paul N. Siegel. In 1979, he was elected Circuit Court Judge at Large, Seat #2 to present.

20.     Judicial Office:
He was City Recorder, City Court, Walterboro, South Carolina, 1971-1972. He was elected by the City Council. The jurisdiction of this Court was the same as the jurisdiction of a Magistrate's Court involving traffic violations and misdemeanors. He is presently a Circuit Court Judge at Large with unlimited general criminal and civil jurisdiction, 1979 to present.

21.     Five (5) of the most significant orders or opinions:
(a)     Allen E. Vaughan, William A. Vaughan, Tom S. Bruce, and James R. Mann, Respondents v. James T. Kalyvas and Anne B. Kalyvas, Appellant. 342 S.E.2d 617.
(b)     Betty Sligh, Administratrix of the Estate of Martha Murphy, Appellant v. James H. Johnson, Jr., M.D., and Stanmore E. Reed, M.D., Respondents. 342 S.E.2d 620.
(c)     Jack L. Chandler, Deceased Employee, Millie M. Chandler, Widow, Jack L. Chandler, Jr., Son, and Pamela Chandler Hopkins, Daughter, Claimants, of whom Millie M. Chandler is Appellant v. Suitt Construction Company, Employer, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Carrier, Respondents. Appeal of Millie M. Chandler. 343 S.E.2d 633
(d)     The Mayor's House, Inc., Respondent v. Albert Mosseri, Soloman Mosseri and Soloman Castro, Appellants.
(e)     Dorchester County School District Three, Leon Addison, Ellis Boyd, Jr., William Boyd, Jr., Gladys Gardner, Nancy Hargrove, Rachel Jenkins, and Larry Marchant, in their official capacity as members of the Board of Trustees with Dorchester County School District Three, Plaintiffs v. Dorchester County Council, et al., Defendants. C.A. No. 85-CP-18-528

22.     Public Office: He was elected to the South Carolina State Senate, District No. 15, Office No. 1, 1977-1979.

24.     Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Upon graduating from Clemson in 1963, and before entering law school in 1964, he was employed by the Clemson Extension Service as an assistant county agent in Bamberg County. He also, for about 4 years, owned a one-half interest in a restaurant between 1975 and the spring of 1979. He is also a timber farmer, and was formerly on the Board of Directors and President of State Savings and Loan Association of Walterboro, South Carolina.

25.     Officer or Director: He is a general partner of Howell Farms, A Partnership (Timber Farm).

31.     Sued:
He was a Plaintiff in an action as an organizer and director of State Savings and Loan Association of Walterboro v. the Directors of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Walterboro in the Court of Common Pleas. The cause of action was malicious delay of our application to establish an additional savings and loan association in Walterboro. The action was answered by the Defendants and a counterclaim was served on the Plaintiff. State Savings was eventually chartered and at present is operational. The suit was dismissed by a consent of parties with prejudice.
He is a Defendant in a lawsuit arising out of Charleston County, Wilburt A. Siegel v. James Island Public Service District, et al. The Plaintiff was pro se and alleged that he was mistreated by the Court when held in contempt. The matter is now in Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiff appealed the Federal District Court's decision to dismiss this action.
He is a Defendant, along with the Supreme Court, in Arthur W. Keels v. State of South Carolina, et al. He is being represented by the Attorney General's office in this action, and they have not advised him of the status of the case lately. In his opinion, it is frivolous.

33.     His last physical was July 17, 1992, by Dr. Frank J. Biggers, #2 Medical Park, Suite 201, Walterboro, South Carolina 29488

34.     Hospitalized: In April of 1989, he had surgery because of a ruptured appendix and was out of work for approximately 5 weeks.

35.     He has mild near-sightedness.

43.     Expenditures for candidacy:
The following is an accounting showing funds expended in excess of $100.00 required by Article 8 of "The Ethics, Government Accountability, and Campaign Reform Act of 1991":
1-7-92         Letters sent to all Senators & Representatives by candidate - $49.88
1-22-92     Letters sent to all Senators & Representatives by others - $49.88
10-12-92     Miscellaneous letters by candidate as of 10-12-92 - $12.76
1-7-93         Miscellaneous letters by candidate as of 1-7-93 - $17.11
TOTAL: $129.63
The following is an update accounting of funds expended after January 7, 1993:
2/4/93         Address stickers from S. C. Bar - $17.10
2/5/93         Miscellaneous letters sent by candidate - $49.59
3/23/93     Miscellaneous letters sent by candidate - $3.19
3/23/93     Phone calls by candidate - $111.84
TOTAL: $311.35

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association and Colleton County Bar Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Bethel United Methodist Church and Clemson Alumni Association

50.     He knows of no information that would reflect upon him adversely and feels that he has the character, integrity and temperament to fulfill this position.

42.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Michael G. Davenport, Senior Banking Executive
NationsBank
520 North Jefferies Boulevard, Walterboro, SC 29488
(b)     Walton J. McLeod, Jr., Esquire
McLeod, Fraser & Cone
111 E. Washington Street, P. O. Drawer 230

Walterboro, SC 29488
(c)     John Hamilton Smith, Esquire
Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale
28 Broad Street, P. O. Box 993

Charleston, SC 29401
(d)     D. Reece Williams, III, Esquire
Robinson, McFadden & Moore, P.C.
1901 Main Street, P. O. Box 944

Columbia, SC 29202
(e)     John C. Land, III, Esquire
Drawer G, Manning, South Carolina 29102

Q     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. RECORDS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE, INCLUDING THE COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE WALTERBORO CITY POLICE. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF COLLETON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU. THERE ARE TWO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST YOU, AND ONE SUIT STEMMING FROM A MALPRACTICE SUIT. ALL HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS SOME MENTION OF SOME SUIT, BUT THAT WAS DISMISSED WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES.
A     YES.
Q     I DON'T HAVE ANY STATEMENT HERE ON MY RECORD THOUGH AS TO HOW YOU WOULD DESCRIBE YOUR HEALTH; SO, I WOULD ASK YOU TO DESCRIBE YOUR HEALTH AT THIS TIME.
A     GOOD. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS, A LITTLE MILD HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I'M OKAY.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR. AND THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE AND NO WITNESSES ARE PRESENT OR HAVE ASKED TO TESTIFY. WITH THAT, I WILL TURN THE QUESTIONING OVER TO MR. COUICK.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     JUDGE, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, OR IF YOU NEED ANYTHING, JUST LET ME KNOW AND WE WILL BE GLAD TO SPEAK UP LOUDER OR GET WHATEVER YOU NEED FOR YOU.
A     ALL RIGHT.
Q     JUDGE, IN REVIEWING THE MATERIALS YOU FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE, I NOTICE THAT YOU DO NOT CITE ANY CRIMINAL CASES IN YOUR CASES THAT YOU LIST AS ONES THAT YOU ARE, I GUESS, MOST PROUD OF. TELL ME WHY THAT IS THE CASE.
A     WELL, IN TRIAL COURT, AS ONE JUDGE HAS ALREADY POINTED OUT, YOU VERY SELDOM WRITE AN ORDER. I CAN'T EVER RECALL WRITING AN ORDER IN A CRIMINAL CASE.
Q     BUT SOME OF THE OTHER CASES THAT YOU REPORTED WERE PUBLISHED?
A     I SAT ON THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE WEEK.
Q     OKAY.
A     AND THOSE CASES WERE THE RESULT OF THAT ONE WEEK WHEN I SAT AS A GUEST ON THE COURT OF APPEALS AS AN ACTING ASSOCIATE JUDGE; SO, I REPORTED THOSE AND WE JUST HAPPENED NOT TO HEAR ANY CRIMINAL CASES THAT WEEK.
Q     GOOD. THANK YOU FOR STRAIGHTENING THAT OUT. IN ADDITION, YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 13 ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST, YOU, AS DID A NUMBER OF OTHER FOLKS, DID NOT BREAK OUT MONIES RECEIVED FROM THE STATE. YOU HAVE GOT LISTED DOWN SOUTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT SALARY OF 87,403.92. IF YOU CAN'T DO IT TODAY, COULD YOU HAVE YOUR OFFICE GET A SPECIFIC LISTING OF WHAT PART OF THAT SALARY, OR IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER AMOUNTS, OR IF THAT AMOUNT INCLUDES PER DIEM, MILEAGE, WHATEVER, IF YOU COULD BREAK THAT OUT AND FORWARD IT IN TO THE COMMITTEE?
A     I WILL BE GLAD TO. I DON'T THINK IT DOES INCLUDE THE PER DIEM OR MILEAGE EXCEPT FOR THAT PART OF THE YEAR WHERE THEY STARTED THE NEW PROCEDURE, WHICH I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS EXCEPT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.
Q     I WOULD JUST POINT OUT FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT THAT THE QUESTION, AS I SAID COMES FROM THE ETHICS COMMISSION, AND IS NOT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR; IT DOES ASK FOR INCOME AND PAYMENTS. SO AT LEAST WE HAVE INTERPRETED THAT TO INCLUDE ANY OTHER TYPE OF MONIES YOU RECEIVE FROM THE STATE.
A     ALL RIGHT, SIR.
Q     SO IF YOU WOULD INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR ANSWER. YOUR LAST MARTINDALE HUBBLE RATING, WHICH I GUESS GOES BACK SOME TIME, WAS A BUG.; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     AS FAR AS I KNOW. I DON'T THINK I EVER CHECKED IT.
Q     OKAY. ONE THING THAT I WAS TROUBLED BY IN GOING THROUGH YOUR APPLICATION TO THE COMMITTEE, JUDGE, WAS THAT YOU INCLUDED A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION FROM SENATOR LAND AMONG YOUR FIVE LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION. PERHAPS WE COULD SHARE A COPY OF THAT WITH JUDGE HOWELL, AND I WILL WITHHOLD FURTHER QUESTIONING UNTIL YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT FOR A MOMENT.
A     ALL RIGHT, SIR. I HAVE A COPY OF IT.
Q     OKAY. WELL, YOU DO HAVE A COPY?
A     IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE FILE. SHE CAN PROBABLY GET AHOLD OF IT QUICKER THAN I CAN, BUT IT'S SOMEWHERE (INDICATING FILE).
Q     LET ME PUBLISH IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT. AND THIS IS ADDRESSED TO SENATOR GLENN F. MCCONNELL:

"DEAR SENATOR, I'M AWARE THAT CIRCUIT JUDGE WILLIAM T. HOWELL HAS FILED AS A CANDIDATE FOR CHIEF JUDGE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. I HAVE KNOWN JUDGE HOWELL FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, AND I KNOW HIM TO BE A PERSON OF OUTSTANDING CHARACTER AND ABILITY. JUDGE HOWELL HAS SERVED WITH DISTINCTION FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS ON THE CIRCUIT COURT BENCH, AND HAS ENJOYED AN EXCELLENT REPUTATION AS A LEARNED AND FAIR JURIST. I AM PLEASED TO HIGHLY RECOMMEND HIM TO THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE. IF FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED IN REGARD TO THIS RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL ME. WITH WARMEST PERSONAL REGARDS I AM VERY TRULY YOURS, JOHN C. LAND, III."

JUDGE HOWELL, NOWHERE IN THIS LETTER IS THE WORD "PLEDGE" USED. NOWHERE IS THE WORD "REQUEST TO COMMIT," OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. COULD YOU UNDERSTAND HOW COUNSEL, OR PERHAPS THIS COMMITTEE, COULD BE TROUBLED IN THAT BEFORE THE SCREENING PROCESS EVER TOOK PLACE, ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT YOU INCLUDED OUT OF THE PACKET OF FIVE, WHICH I PRESUME YOU REQUESTED---
A     YES.
Q     ---CAME FROM A SITTING SENATOR, AND ASKED FOR THIS COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION?
A     WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND IT, UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXION OF THE SITUATION TODAY; BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD A SITTING MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN THE PAST WRITE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION. IT HAPPENED THAT THE SAME FELLOW WHO HAS DONE IT EVERY TIME IS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.
Q     ALL RIGHT.
A     AND I DIDN'T FEEL I COULD ASK HIM TO DO IT, AND I KNEW THAT I COULDN'T ASK HIM TO DO IT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PREJUDGE MY QUALIFICATIONS. Y'ALL ASKED ME TO GET A REFERENCE, AND THAT'S ALL THIS IS, IS A REFERENCE. IT'S NOT A PLEDGE. AND I FIGURED NO BETTER PERSON TO GIVE A REFERENCE THAN SOMEBODY WHO HAS KNOWN ME THAT LONG AND SERVED WITH ME IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. AND I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT.
Q     JUDGE, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED THE COMPLEXION OF THE COMMITTEE, AND I HAVE TO ADMIT TO YOU THAT I SERVED AS COUNSEL OF THIS COMMITTEE FROM 1984, I GUESS, TO 1987 OR 8 WHEN SENATOR THOMAS E. SMITH SERVED AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND THINGS WERE A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT.
A     YES.
Q     YOUR COUNSEL THEN DID NOT ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT HE'S ASKING TODAY.
A     I'M NOT BEING CRITICAL. DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME. I THINK IT'S FINE. BUT I DIDN'T SEE--IT NEVER HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE, IS THE POINT I MAKE.
Q     WELL, I GUESS WHAT I WAS LEADING TO WAS, THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASK TODAY ARE BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT TIMES HAVE CHANGED.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS LETTER, LEADS UP TO THE QUESTION, IF WE DON'T START MAKING BRIGHT LINE DISTINCTIONS AND ASKING FOR FOLKS TO REALLY COOPERATE EVEN BEYOND JUST THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT THIS COMMITTEE CAN BE ON THE BACK END OF THE SELECTION PROCESS? - ON THE BACK END IN THE SENSE THAT ALL COMMITMENTS WHICH ARE MADE BY A WINK AND A HANDSHAKE, AS OPPOSED TO BY FORMAL WORD, OCCUR BEFORE THE SCREENING EVER TAKES PLACE; AND THERE HAS BEEN RUMORS FLOATING AROUND, NOT PARTICULARLY ABOUT YOUR CANDIDACY, BUT ABOUT OTHERS THAT FOLKS HAVE 86 COMMITMENTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR 32 IN THE SENATE. HOW CAN THAT REALLY EXIST IN ACCORD WITH THE ROLE OF THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH IS TO SCREEN AND REALLY SET THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO TAKE ACTION?
A     I AGREE ABSOLUTELY. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ETHICS LEGISLATION SAYS THAT A CANDIDATE SHALL NOT SEEK, NOR A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY GIVE A PLEDGE. NOW A PLEDGE TO ME IS A PROMISE, OR A COMMITMENT, A COVENANT. (PAUSE.) IS THERE A DIFFERENT MEANING?
Q     NO, SIR, I DON'T THINK SO, BUT I---
A     IN THE COMMITTEE'S MIND?
Q     NO, SIR, I DON'T THINK, OTHER THAN, AS I SAY, THE LETTER OF THE LAW CERTAINLY SAYS "PLEDGE," BUT I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW ALSO SAYS THAT IF THINGS THAT GO ON--THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, NOT RELATED TO YOUR CANDIDACY; IF THERE ARE FOLKS THAT ARE GOING OUT AND GATHERING A MULTITUDE OF PLEDGES, WHICH ARE DONE WITH A WINK OR A HANDSHAKE, AS OPPOSED TO BY JUST DIRECT VERBAL COMMUNICATION---
A     I AGREE.
Q     ---THAT'S TO BE FROWNED UPON; IN FACT, IT OUGHT TO BE PROHIBITED AND IS PROHIBITED BY LAW.
A     I AGREE.
Q     BUT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE RELUCTANT TO ADMIT ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT TRANSACTION THAT THEY HAVE EITHER PLEDGED WITH THE WINK OR THE HANDSHAKE, OR THAT THEY SOUGHT THE PLEDGE UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS, THEN THE BEST WE CAN DO IS REALLY TRY TO GET FOLKS TO REALLY HONOR THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, AS WELL, WHICH IS TO TRY TO RESPECT THIS INSTITUTION, THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE, AND TRY TO HOLD OFF THESE MASSIVE ONSLAUGHTS FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY UNTIL THE SCREENING COMMITTEE HAS SAID ITS PIECE.
A     I WOULD BE GLAD TO GET TOGETHER WITH ANY OPPONENT I HAVE IN THIS AND DO THAT. YOU KNOW, SAY LET'S DON'T GO OVER THERE OR IT'S PROHIBITED BY LEGISLATION. BUT YOU HAVE TO SEEK SUPPORT, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING HERE FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS NOW, SINCE LAST JANUARY. AND I HAVE NOT SOUGHT ANY PLEDGES. I HAVE NOT SOUGHT ANY COMMITMENT. BUT I DO SEEK PEOPLE TO KNOW ME AND UNDERSTAND ME, AND, HOPEFULLY, SUPPORT ME AND STAY OPEN AND THEN PLEDGE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
Q     JUDGE, ON THE ISSUE OF PLEDGING, YOU HAVE HEARD THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED JUDGE SHAW, AND THEN JUDGE GARDNER KIND OF GRABBED THE BULL BY THE HORN AND OFFERED THE PLEDGE BEFORE I COULD EVER ASK THE QUESTION ON PLEDGING; LET ME READ THEM TO YOU AGAIN SINGULARLY, AND SEE IF YOU CAN AGREE TO MAKING THIS PLEDGE TO THIS COMMITTEE TODAY ABOUT PLEDGES. AS A CANDIDATE YOU WILL NOT SEEK THE PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR'S VOTE PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SCREENING PROCESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLEDGE SOUGHT IS CONDITIONAL UPON YOUR SCREENING FAVORABLY.
A     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     I TAKE THAT YOU'RE NODDING AS VERBAL ASSENT TO---
A     YES, SIR, I AGREE WITH THAT.
Q     NUMBER 2, AS A CANDIDATE, YOU WILL NOT ASK OR OTHERWISE AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT OR SEEK A PLEDGE PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THIS SCREENING PROCESS?
A     ABSOLUTELY.
Q     AND, FINALLY, JUDGE, THAT YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SOLICITATIONS BY YOU OR ON YOUR BEHALF TO DATE---
A     NO.
Q     ---IN THIS PROCESS?
A     I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE.
Q     JUDGE, YOU HEARD ME ASK JUDGE SHAW AND JUDGE GARDNER EXTENSIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THIS 10TH YEAR ANNIVERSARY. YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THAT COURT. YOU ARE NOT, EXCEPT BY ON OCCASION WHERE YOU HAVE SAT AD HOC ON THE COURT, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN A PART OF THAT 10-YEAR PROCESS. WHY DO YOU PRESUME TO BE ABLE TO COME INTO THAT COURT NOW 10 YEARS LATER AND OFFER IT GUIDANCE OR LEADERSHIP AND TAKE IT SOME PLACE WHEN YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHERE IT'S BEEN?
A     WELL, I HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, THE TRIAL PROCESS, AND AS YOU POINTED OUT, I HAVE SAT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ON OCCASION. I FEEL THAT I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE GAINED ON THE TRIAL BENCH, THE EXPERIENCE OF SENTENCING PEOPLE AND DEALING WITH THE SENTENCES, AND THE EXPERIENCE OF DEALING WITH THE VICTIMS AND THE SENTENCES HAVE TO BE SATISFYING IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER, AND THE EXPERIENCE OF CHARGING JURIES, AND THE EXPERIENCE OF RULING IN CAMERA HEARINGS, AND RULING ON EVIDENCE. NO ONE ON THE COURT HAS HAD ANY JURY EXPERIENCE, AND I THINK I CAN CONTRIBUTE IN THAT REGARD. NOW I THINK AS TO THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION, AS CHIEF JUDGE, I THINK I COULD--LET ME SAY THAT I AGREE WITH THE WAY JUDGE SANDERS WAS RUNNING IT. I DON'T THINK THAT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION I COULD FILL HIS SHOES. I THINK HE HAD A COLLEGIALITY AND A COHESIVENESS AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THAT COURT THAT IS LAUDABLE, AND I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES YOU SHOULD HAVE ON THE APPELLATE COURT, IS UNANIMITY, INSOFAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE. I THINK YOUR DECISION SHOULD REFLECT THE CONSIDERED AGREEMENT INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT VIOLATING ONE OF THE MEMBERS' ABSOLUTE CONSCIENCE TO SETTLING THAT PARTICULAR LEGAL ISSUE SO THE ATTORNEYS CAN BE GUIDED BY IT AND THE LOWER COURTS CAN BE GUIDED BY IT. AND I THINK THE WAY HE SET UP THE COURT, AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BECAUSE HE IS A CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE, AND WE DISCUSSED ON MANY OCCASIONS HIS OPERATION OF THE COURT, AND I THINK JUST PROMOTED IT WITH THE FORCE OF HIS PERSONALITY, WHICH I COULD NEVER EQUAL, BUT I THINK THAT HAS TO DO A LOT WITH YOUR GOD-GIVEN TALENT OF GETTING ALONG WITH PEOPLE AND BEING ABLE TO SIT WITH THEM AND REASON WITH THEM AND ADDRESS THESE ISSUES THAT COME UP DAILY IN ANYBODY WHEN YOU ARE BY LAW AND BY ETHICS, THEY ARE REALLY YOUR ONLY FRIENDS AND THE ONLY PEOPLE YOU CAN DISCUSS MATTERS WITH. SO I THINK A CONSCIOUS, HARD EFFORT HAS TO BE PUT FORTH TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.
Q     JUDGE, LET'S PRESUME FOR A MOMENT THAT IT'S 45 DAYS FROM NOW AND THE ELECTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. YOU ARE THE NEW CHIEF JUDGE. IT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE ERA OF THE HOWELL COURT. YOU'RE SITTING DOWN THE FIRST DAY AT YOUR DESK. WHAT ARE THE FIRST THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO DO, OTHER THAN HIRE A SECRETARY AND A LAW CLERK TO COME UP HERE WITH YOU? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO FOR THE COURT? WHAT SPECIFIC THINGS ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
A     WELL, I'M GOING TO SIT DOWN WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT AND GET THEIR IDEAS ON HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING, AND WHAT DIRECTION THEY THINK IT OUGHT TO TAKE, AND IF THERE IS ANY CHANGE THEY THINK IS NECESSARY; GET TOGETHER WITH THE STAFF, THE STAFF PERSONNEL, THE LAW CLERKS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE, THE STAFF ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE, THE CLERK, THE SECRETARIES, INDIVIDUALLY AND FIND OUT HOW THEY FEEL THINGS ARE OPERATING, WHAT THEIR PROBLEMS ARE, AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE--WHERE THEY THINK THAT THE PROBLEMS EXIST, IF ANY; AND THEN TRY TO CORRECT THEM; AND THEN TRY TO MOVE THE COURT ALONG.
A     I HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE RECENT ORDER THAT CAME DOWN FROM THE SUPREME COURT ON EACH JUDGE ON THE COURT BEING ASSIGNED A CASE IN ADVANCE. ONE THING I ALWAYS ADMIRED ABOUT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS THE FACT THAT EVERY ONE OF THE THREE JUDGES ON THE PANEL WERE PREPARED AND READY TO HEAR THAT CASE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO BE THE ONE ASSIGNED TO WRITE THE OPINION. AND WHEN I SAT WITH THEM, THEY MET BEFORE THE ARGUMENTS, AND WENT OVER THE ARGUMENTS, AND WHEN THE ARGUMENTS WERE CONCLUDED--I MEAN, WENT OVER THE CASE AND WHEN THE ARGUMENTS WERE CONCLUDED, THEY RECONVENED AND SAT AGAIN, AND TOOK WHATEVER TIME NECESSARY TO TRY TO REACH A CONSENSUS. AND FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD HERE TODAY, APPARENTLY THAT ISN'T GOING ON NOW. ONE JUDGE--THEY ARE DOING LIKE THE SUPREME COURT: ONE JUDGE IS ASSIGNED THE OPINION AND BY THE CRUNCHING OF NUMBERS, THERE IS ONLY ONE REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE, BUT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO BE, AND WE JUST HAVE TO SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS.
Q     JUDGE, YOU MENTION THAT, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE HEARD FROM WHAT I SAID THAT IT WOULD CERTAINLY SEEM TO SIGNAL THAT, AT LEAST, YOUR COUNSEL FOR THIS COMMITTEE HAS SOME AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU SAY, BUT ISN'T THERE REALLY A LARGE PRACTICAL PROBLEM THERE IN THE NAME OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THAT HE IS THE HEAD OF THIS COURT, AND THAT BY STATUTE AND BY CONSTITUTION, THEY ARE GIVEN A LOT OF PREROGATIVE ABOUT THIS COURT. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WITHOUT STEPPING ON HIS TOES TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY IGNORE YOU AND JUST GIVE YOU BENIGN NEGLECT?
A     WELL, I HAVE SERVED UNDER FIVE CHIEF JUSTICES, STARTING WITH JUSTICE LEWIS, AND JUSTICE LITTLEJOHN, JUSTICE NESS, GREGORY, AND NOW JUSTICE HARWELL, AND ON THE TRIAL BENCH WE ARE OUT THERE ALONE AND WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE PERIODICALLY ON ISSUES, AND ISSUES NOT A LOT UNLIKE THIS. AND IT'S JUST A MATTER OF SITTING DOWN AND REASONING AND EXPLAINING WHAT YOU FEEL YOUR MISSION IS, EXPLAINING HOW FAR YOU FEEL YOUR AUTHORITY GOES, AND YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND THE PUBLIC, WHO, IN TURN, HAS ELECTED YOU. AND I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT HAVING A GREAT CLASH OF PERSONALITIES, AND IT HAS TO BE WORKED OUT WITH THE COURT AS A WHOLE. AS I UNDERSTAND JUSTICE HARWELL'S METHOD, THERE IS A CONSENSUS USUALLY ON THE SUPREME COURT BEFORE THEY TAKE ACTION; SO, YOU'VE GOT A CHANCE, JUST LIKE ANY LAWYER WOULD HAVE, OF WINNING THREE VOTES BEFORE THEM. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE TO SEEK TO DO.
Q     WHAT PARTS OF YOUR TEMPERAMENT AND DEMEANOR THAT YOU TAKE FROM THE TRIAL BENCH DO YOU THINK ARE GOING TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HAVE ON THE APPELLATE BENCH, AS A JUDGE; NOT AS CHIEF JUDGE, BUT JUST AS A JUDGE?
A     ON THE APPELLATE BENCH?
Q     ON THE APPELLATE BENCH.
A     I THINK PROBABLY A LOT OF IT IS PERSONALITY, A PERSON'S MAKEUP, HOW THEY ARE BORN; BUT I HAVE ACQUIRED AN ABILITY TO LISTEN, AND I THINK THAT'S THE MOST VALUABLE THING ANY JUDGE CAN HAVE. AND IT'S REALLY AN ACQUIRED THING, AND I'VE DEVELOPED IT SINCE BEING ON THE BENCH. I CAN LOOK AT A LAWYER, NO MATTER HOW TIRED I AM, AND I THINK I CAN LISTEN AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING HE SAYS, AND PLAY IT BACK TO HIM IF NECESSARY, AND YOU NEED TO DID THAT AS A JUDGE. YOU NEED TO LISTEN. AND YOU NEED NOT TO HAVE PRECONCEIVED IDEAS OR NOTIONS ABOUT THINGS BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THEY AREN'T EXACTLY CORRECT BECAUSE WE DEVELOP A PERSONALITY, BUT AS JUDGES, WE HAVE TO PUT ASIDE THOSE PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS AND FOLLOW THE LAW AS IT EXISTS, NOT AS WE THINK IT IS.
Q     JUDGE, I HAVE NEVER HAD THE BENEFIT OF BEING IN YOUR COURT AS AN ATTORNEY OR EITHER AS AN OBSERVER; WHAT IS YOUR WORK ETHIC? HOW DO YOU APPROACH YOUR COURT? HOW LONG DO YOU WORK? HOW LONG DO YOU EXPECT THE LAWYERS TO STAY AND APPEAR BEFORE YOU? WHAT IS YOUR WORK WEEK LIKE?
A     OUR WORK WEEK IS LESSENED SUBSTANTIALLY SINCE THE CRUNCH OF THE OLD SWAT DAYS WHENEVER WE SENT OUT SWAT TEAMS, AND THE LAWYERS IN HERE REMEMBER THAT, TO CLEAR UP THE RICHLAND COUNTY DOCKET, CLEAR UP THE CHARLESTON COUNTY DOCKET. IN THOSE TIMES WE WERE WORKING ACTUALLY IN-COURT TIME, YOU KNOW, 8:00 O'CLOCK UNTIL 8:00 O'CLOCK, SOMETIMES 10:00 OR 11:00 O'CLOCK, AND ALWAYS ON FRIDAY NIGHT WE WOULD GET HOME LATE. WE AREN'T PUSHING THAT HARD ANYMORE. I NORMALLY--WE TRY TO RUN A--START COURT, NOW THIS IS THE ACTUAL WHEN THE JUDGE WALKS ON THE BENCH, AT 9:30; RUN TO 1:00 AND BREAK FOR LUNCH UNTIL 2:00, AND THEN RECESS AT 5:30. NOW THE 5:30 HOUR, AS EVERY LAWYER WILL TELL YOU THAT'S KIND OF A FALLACY, IT'S USUALLY 6:00 OR 6:30 WHEN YOU CAN FIND A CONVENIENT STOPPING POINT. BUT MY WORKDAY STARTS EVERY DAY, MORNING IN MY OFFICE AT 7:30. I GO THERE ON THE WAY TO COURT, IF I'M IN DRIVING DISTANCE, WHICH IS CHARLESTON, AND ST. GEORGE, ORANGEBURG, AND EVERYWHERE IN MY CIRCUIT, THE FIVE COUNTIES OF MY CIRCUIT. I GO BY AND READ MY MAIL, SIGN MY ORDERS, RETURN ORDERS, HAVE HEARINGS, JUST RULES TO SHOW CAUSE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND THEN I SET THEM AGAIN AFTER THE JURY IS DISMISSED. I SET THEM FOR 5:00 O'CLOCK. THE LAWYERS ARE PATIENT ENOUGH UNTIL WE HAVE A STOPPING TIME, AND I USUALLY SPEND 30 MINUTES TO AN HOUR DOING THAT.
Q     JUDGE, ON EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, WHAT IS YOUR RULE?
A     MY RULE IS TO PROHIBIT IT COMPLETELY. AND IT'S--YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AS EASILY DONE AS SAID. A LOT OF LAWYERS WILL WALK IN AND SAY SO-AND-SO KNOWS I'M HERE. I HAVE TOLD HIM I AM COMING. YOU JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH. HE HAS TO BE WITH YOU. THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT COMES UP THAT HE WOULD WANT TO RESPOND TO. IT'S DONE A LOT IN CRIMINAL COURT. THE SOLICITOR IS BUSY WITH SOMETHING ELSE AND THIS FELLOW IS TRYING TO GET SOMETHING GOING IN HIS CASE. BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO ESTABLISH A RULE THAT UNLESS BOTH SIDES ARE THERE, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS IT AT ALL.
Q     HOW ABOUT WITH ORDERS, HOW DO YOU HAVE YOUR ATTORNEYS DEVELOP ORDERS?
A     AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, I TRY TO RULE FROM THE BENCH; AND I FIND THAT THE THING IS FRESHEST IN MY MIND AT THAT TIME, USUALLY MY FIRST IMPRESSION IS MY BEST IMPRESSION. WE HAVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER; IF I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, ONCE OR TWICE ON MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER, I HAVE REVERSED MYSELF. BUT I TRY TO DECIDE THEM FROM THE BENCH. I TELL THE LAWYERS THAT I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT ONE OF THEM TO PREPARE THE ORDER, IF I DON'T PREPARE IT MYSELF, SEND THE OTHER ONE A COPY OF THE ORDER, AND I WILL SIGN IT UNLESS I HAVE HEARD FROM ONE OF THEM IN WRITING AND HE HAS COPIED THE OTHER ONE IN A FEW DAYS.
Q     JUDGE, ON THE ISSUE OF LAWYERS APPEARING BEFORE YOU IN THE CONTEXT OF LITIGATION AND AT THE SAME TIME BEING ASKED TO WRITE LETTERS TO MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASKING FOR THEIR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OR AT LEAST CONSIDERATION OF YOU, WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF THAT?
A     I AGREE THAT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE DONE.
Q     HAS THAT EVER OCCURRED WITH YOU?
A     NO, SIR. NOW I'VE HAD LAWYERS COME IN AND SAY, "HOW ARE THINGS GOING IN YOUR RACE," AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I SAID, "LISTEN, I WOULD LOVE TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU, BUT I CAN'T DISCUSS IT WITH YOU." THAT'S INEVITABLE. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT I HAVE NOT SAT DOWN WITH ANY LAWYERS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
Q     JUDGE, YOU HEARD US GO THROUGH A QUITE UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION A WHILE AGO ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. WHAT'S YOUR APPROACH?
A     WELL, I DON'T OWN TOO MUCH, 0SO THAT IS--I HEARD A REFERENCE TO "POOR PEOPLE"; SO, I RECKON IF YOU DON'T OWN TOO MUCH, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM, BUT I THINK IF YOU HAD ANY KIND OF FINANCIAL INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN ANY MATTER, THAT YOU SHOULD NOT HEAR IT. YOU SHOULD RECUSE YOURSELF. I THINK THAT IS THE RULE.
Q     I NOTE ONE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL ASSETS THAT YOU DO HAVE IS SOME TIMBER PROPERTY, I THINK, IN COLLETON COUNTY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     HAVE YOU AVOIDED RULING ON ISSUES INVOLVING THAT?
A     YES, SIR.
A     IN REGARD TO CONFLICTS, I MIGHT COMMENT, THE REASON YOU SHOULDN'T DO IT AT ALL, WHETHER YOU DENY IT, DISSENT, OR WHATEVER YOU DO IN A CASE, OR NOT RULE WITH WHOEVER YOU ARE FINANCIALLY INVOLVED WITH, YOU MIGHT LEAN OVER TOO MUCH TO BE FAIR AND REALLY END UP HURTING THE PARTY THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO NOT SHOW PARTIALITY TOWARDS, AND THAT WOULD BE JUST AS BAD.
Q     JUDGE, YOU HEARD THE DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT GETTING THE ASSISTANCE OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS TO HELP IN YOUR ELECTION EFFORT. WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF HAVING THEM WRITE LETTERS. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER JUDGES HAVING FOLKS HOST PARTIES FOR YOU, OR HOST EVENTS WHERE YOU ARE THE GUEST OF HONOR, EVEN IF INFORMALLY, AND AT LEAST THE MAIN IDEA THERE IS TO GET YOU AROUND AND GET YOU TO MEET FOLKS. HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN THAT PRACTICE DURING THIS CAMPAIGN?
A     NO, SIR, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO THINK AND I CAN'T THINK OF A SITUATION WHERE THAT HAS OCCURRED.
Q     AND FINAL TOPIC, JUDGE, OTHER THAN TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE COURT, ON THE ISSUE OF GIFTS, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR APPROACH TO GIFTS AND SOCIAL HOSPITALITY.
A     WELL, AS ONE OF THE JUDGES POINTED OUT, IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, BEFORE THAT--I THINK IT WAS JUDGE BROWN, AND HE DESCRIBED IT RIGHT APTLY, IT WAS A RIGHT LAX ATTITUDE TOWARD LAWYERS EATING AND DINING WITH JUDGES, AND BUYING JUDGES LUNCHES; BUT SINCE THAT TIME, FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, I DO NOT ACCEPT ANY GIFTS. IF I HAVE LUNCH WITH ATTORNEYS, I PICK UP MY OWN TAB. AND I MAY HAVE BEEN A GUEST IN THEIR HOMES ON OCCASIONS, BUT THESE ARE THE SAME ATTORNEYS THAT ARE GUESTS IN MY HOME ON OCCASIONS.
Q     JUDGE, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS GENERALLY? AND I NOTE FOR THE RECORD YOU WERE HERE IN THE STATE SENATE, I BELIEVE, ABOUT THE TIME THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE FIRST ROUND OF THE LEGISLATURE. WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT ITS STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE WAS VIS-A-VIS THE SUPREME COURT?
A     WELL, I THINK THE SUPREME COURT IS A POLICY COURT. THE COURT DECIDES THE DIRECTION THE LAW PROBABLY SHOULD TAKE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I REALLY FEEL THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS A LAW COURT. THEY RULE ON THE LEGAL ISSUES, THE ERRORS COMMITTED IN THE LOWER COURTS. AND I THINK ULTIMATELY WE ARE GOING INTO--EVOLVE INTO A CERT COURT, AND AT THAT POINT IT MAY CHANGE; BUT AT THIS POINT, I THINK IT'S TO CORRECT LEGAL ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED BEFORE IT AND DOESN'T TRY TO PROMULGATE POLICIES.
Q     THAT WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTS ERRORS.
A     YES.
Q     SHOULD YOU BE RESTRICTED TO ERRORS OF LAW? DO YOU THINK THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION?
A     I THINK IT WAS UNTIL IT EVOLVES INTO A CERT COURT. THEN AT THAT TIME, IT COULD ADDRESS POLICY MATTERS.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S EVERYTHING.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: DO YOU MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

JUDGE HOWELL: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. LET ME JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD FOR EVERYBODY THAT WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO AS THOROUGH A SCREENING AS WE CAN DO; AND TO THAT END, I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO AS IN DEPTH ACROSS-THE-BOARD QUESTIONING AS WE CAN DO; AND THE QUESTIONING IS NOT AIMED AT ANYBODY OR ANYTHING, IT'S JUST MEANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET EVERYTHING OUT THAT WE NEED TO GET OUT AND LOOK AT.
JUDGE HOWELL: LET ME SAY ONE FURTHER THING: JUDGE GARDNER AND I ARE GOOD FRIENDS, AND IF I SAID TO HIM THAT I FELT THE PROCESS WAS OFFENSIVE, HE MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD ME BECAUSE I DIDN'T MEAN THAT. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MISLEADING YOU IF I SAID THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S OFFENSIVE. I THINK IT'S BURDENSOME AND ARDUOUS, BUT NOT OFFENSIVE ON THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE ARE ELECTED.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF COUNSEL FOR THE COMMITTEE COULD AT LEAST CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THE REQUEST THAT I MADE THIS MORNING. I HAD ASKED THAT THE RECORD, WHILE IT MAY BE CLOSED BY THIS COMMITTEE FOR TAKING OF FURTHER TESTIMONY, THIS COMMITTEE WOULD RESERVE ITS RIGHT TO REOPEN IT IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR GENERAL ASSEMBLY WERE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OR ITS COUNSEL PRIOR TO THE TIME OF ELECTION AND RAISE ISSUES OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE AS TO THE RECORD THAT WAS BEING DEVELOPED, THAT IT WOULD RESERVE ITS RIGHT TO REOPEN IT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
MR. COUICK: AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, AS PART OF THAT, I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS COMMITTEE COULD HAVE THE JOURNAL PRINTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT IT COULD BE VERIFIED.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER THINGS AT THIS TIME TO COME BEFORE US? - IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE RECESS THESE HEARINGS AND RECONVENE THEM AT 9:30 THURSDAY MORNING, THE 29TH.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: SO MOVED.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IT'S NOW BEEN MOVED.
SENATOR RUSSELL: SECOND.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: AND SECONDED BY THE SENATOR FROM SPARTANBURG. THE FLOOR NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

(AYE INDICATED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: I THANK Y'ALL FOR COMING.

(WHEREUPON, THE SCREENING WAS RECESSED AT 4:33 P.M.
UNTIL 9:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1993.)
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING OF
APRIL 29, 1993

SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING.
WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING OF THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE BACK INTO ORDER. AND, FIRST, THE SCREENING COMMITTEE IS CREATED PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975 REQUIRING THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CANDIDATES BUT, RATHER, TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR POSITIONS ON THE BENCH ARE IN OUR JUDGMENT QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITIONS. THE INQUIRY WHICH WE UNDERTAKE IS A THOROUGH ONE. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EVERY CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INCLUDING COURTROOM RECORDS. A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST IS REQUIRED. WE RECEIVE A CREDIT REPORT. WE RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING AND FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES. THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS THE PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCREENING CANDIDATES FOR THE FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1, AND CANDIDATES FOR SEAT #1 ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. A COUPLE OF OTHER MATTERS TO ADDRESS PUBLICLY, NO ONE IS FREE TO SEEK COMMITMENTS UNTIL THE REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED; AND THAT, OF COURSE, WILL BE WHEN THE LAST SIGNATURE IS OBTAINED FROM THE COMMITTEE. MRS. SATTERWHITE WILL CONTACT EACH OF THE CANDIDATES AND INFORM THEM WHEN THIS REPORT IS FINAL; SO, THERE IS REALLY NO NEED FOR ANYBODY TO BE CALLING HER ON A DAILY BASIS. SHE WILL SEEK YOU OUT. WE HAVE NO IDEA YET HOW LONG IT WILL BE BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE. WE PLAN TO RECONVENE NEXT TUESDAY FOR FURTHER TESTIMONY IF TIME SO REQUIRES US TO DO SO IN TERMS OF THE SCREENING. I THINK THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS. ANY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, WE WILL THEN PROCEED TO DO OUR FIRST SCREENING OF THE MORNING, AND THE FIRST ONE WILL BE MR. PAUL GARFINKEL. BEFORE I CALL MR. GARFINKEL, I WOULD ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE BAR ASSOCIATION IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO COME UP AND IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, AND, MR. JOHNSON, I NEED YOU TO COME UP AND TAKE THE WITNESS CHAIR. IF YOU WILL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SIR. I.S. LEEVY JOHNSON, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     HAVE A SEAT, SIR.
A     THANK YOU, SIR.
Q     WE ARE DEALING WITH MR. PAUL GARFINKEL, AND WE WILL BE TAKING THEM INDIVIDUALLY, SO WE WOULD RECEIVE YOUR REPORT ON MR. GARFINKEL AT THIS TIME, SIR.
A     MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, OUR COMMITTEE HAS FOUND MR. GARFINKEL QUALIFIED.
Q     WILL YOU GIVE ME YOUR REASONS FOR WHY YOU FIND HIM QUALIFIED?
A     THE EVALUATIONS THAT WE RECEIVED INDICATED THAT HE HAD CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN THE FAMILY COURT, THAT HE HAD A GOOD TEMPERAMENT, THAT HE WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE LAW. THOSE WERE HIS STRONG ASSETS.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK A QUESTION?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, THE SENATOR FROM AIKEN, GO AHEAD.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     GOOD MORNING, SIR.
A     GOOD MORNING, SIR.
Q     MR. JOHNSON, CAN YOU TELL ME BASICALLY WHAT THE EVALUATION CONSISTS OF, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN THAT EVALUATION, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE DETAILS?
A     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE EVALUATIONS CONSIST OF INTERVIEWING A MINIMUM OF 30 PEOPLE. IN THE GROUP, WE TRIED TO DIVERSIFY THE INTERVIEWS. THE INTERVIEWS PRIMARILY CONSISTED OF OTHER LAWYERS, JUDGES, COURTROOM PERSONNEL, SUCH AS BAILIFFS, AND, ALSO, EACH APPLICANT GAVE US FIVE REFERENCES. OUR EXPERIENCE WAS THAT WE WOULD INTERVIEW ONE PERSON AND THAT WOULD LEAD TO ANOTHER PERSON. WE TRIED TO GIVE SOME BALANCE TO EACH INVESTIGATION. THAT IS TO SAY, WE WOULD USE THE REFERENCES THAT THEY GAVE US. INDEPENDENTLY WE WOULD GO TO OTHER SOURCES. ONE QUESTION THAT WE WOULD ASK IS THAT, "DO YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY WHO WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT?" SO WE TRIED TO GET SOME BALANCE IN POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS IN ORDER TO GIVE SOME BALANCE TO OUR INVESTIGATION.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
Q     DURING THE EVALUATION, THIS MINIMUM OF 30 PEOPLE OR WHATEVER, JUST HYPOTHETICALLY IF 25 PEOPLE GAVE QUALIFIED AND FIVE PEOPLE SAID UNQUALIFIED, OR THERE WAS SOME DISCREPANCY, OR, YOU KNOW, THE RATINGS QUALIFIED, NOT QUALIFIED, WELL-QUALIFIED, WHO THEN SITS IN AS FAR AS ASSIMILATING ALL THOSE EVALUATIONS AND MAKES THE DECISION? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN THAT?
A     THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE. EACH SEAT THAT WE HAVE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE CHIEF JUDGE SEAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE GARDNER'S SEAT, AND THE FAMILY COURT SEAT, EACH SEAT WAS ASSIGNED A MINIMUM OF THREE MEMBERS AND THEY DID THE BACKGROUND, AS IT WERE, AND BROUGHT THE INFORMATION TO US. IN ADDITION TO THAT, EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WAS INSTRUCTED AND DID INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION ON THE APPLICANTS; SO, IN THE END, EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE DID SOME--MADE SOME INQUIRIES ABOUT THE APPLICANTS. ANY LAWYER WILL HAVE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMMENTS. YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH A LAWYER A COMMENT THAT "HE IS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THE LAW, BUT I QUESTION HIS TEMPERAMENT." YOU MIGHT HAVE A COMMENT LIKE, "I ADMIRE HIS TEMPERAMENT, BUT I QUESTION HIS EXPERIENCE." SO ANY LAWYER OR JUDGE WHO IS ACTIVE IN THE PRACTICE IS GOING TO GET POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMMENTS.
Q     HOW MANY MEMBERS MAKE UP THE COMMITTEE?
A     12; AND THE COMMITTEE IS COMPOSED OF A DIVERSITY OF ATTORNEYS. CONTRARY TO THE STEREOTYPING, IT IS NOT AN ELITIST COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE WAS DIVERSE IN TERMS OF EXPERIENCE, TERRITORY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN THEIR AREAS OF PRACTICE. LAWYERS LIKE MYSELF WHO PRACTICE IN MAGISTRATE'S COURT, IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT, AND LAWYERS WHO PRACTICE ON THE APPELLATE LEVEL, SOME WORK IN INSTITUTIONS, SOME IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, AND WE HAVE A PROSECUTOR ON THE COMMITTEE. I REPRESENT TO YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, IN ALL MY EXPERIENCES THAT I HAVE HAD IN THE AREA OF LAW WORK, AND I AM A LAW JUNKIE BECAUSE I AM ACTIVE IN THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THIS COMMITTEE DOESN'T COMPARE WITH ANY COMMITTEE I HAVE EVER DEALT WITH IN TERMS OF THEIR DIVERSITY, OR THEIR OBJECTIVITY, AND THEIR COMMITMENT TO BE OBJECTIVE IN THEIR FINDINGS AND EVALUATION AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     DO YOUR INTERVIEWS INCLUDE NON-LAWYERS?
A     ABSOLUTELY INCLUDES NON-LAWYERS.
Q     I'M CURIOUS ABOUT HOW YOU LOCATE THE NON-LAWYERS TO TALK TO. I KNOW THAT THE APPLICATION, YOU ASKED FOR PERSONAL REFERENCES, WHICH I WOULD ASSUME WOULD INCLUDE NON-LAWYERS, BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT HOW YOU DETERMINE WHAT PEOPLE THAT AREN'T MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL COMMUNITY TO TALK TO.
A     IT'S SORT OF A FEEDER SYSTEM. FOR EXAMPLE, I PERSONALLY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERVIEWING JUDGE CAROL CONNOR, AND I WENT OVER TO THE COURTHOUSE AND DURING THE COURSE OF TALKING TO PEOPLE IN THE COURTHOUSE, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A ROSTER SYSTEM IN RICHLAND COUNTY - PEOPLE WAITING TO GO TO COURT, AND I APPROACHED PEOPLE AND ASKED THEM, "HAVE YOU EVER BEEN BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR?" I ASKED THE BAILIFFS. I ASKED THE DEPUTIES WHO WORK IN THE COURTHOUSE FROM THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. I APPROACHED PEOPLE AND INTERVIEWED AND QUESTIONED THEM. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TRIED TO DO IS TO GET MEMBERS OF OUR COMMITTEE THAT WERE NEAR TO THE LOCALE SO THEY COULD HAVE ACCESS TO NON-LAWYERS AND LAWYERS.
Q     DO YOU SEND A, OR DO YOU DO A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR OF RICHLAND COUNTY, FOR INSTANCE, FOR JUDGE CONNOR, OR IN THE INSTANCE OF PEOPLE FROM CHARLESTON TO THE CHARLESTON BAR---
A     NO.
Q     ---JUST TO SEE WHAT KIND OF RESPONSE YOU GET?
A     NO.
Q     SO IT PRETTY MUCH IS DEPENDENT ON WHO THE--THE NAMES YOU GET AS REFERENCES OR PEOPLE THAT ARE--OR PEOPLE THAT YOU MIGHT KNOW IN THE COMMUNITY?
A     MIGHT KNOW, AND WE ACTIVELY AND AGGRESSIVELY SEEK OUT PEOPLE WHO WE THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME INFORMATION.
IT'S NOT A SCIENTIFIC SURVEY, BUT IT IS INTERESTING HOW ONCE YOU START INTERVIEWING PEOPLE, A PATTERN DEVELOPS, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE APPLICANTS HAVE MADE THEIR MARKS IN THE VARIOUS AREAS, AND THE OPINIONS AND EVALUATIONS OF THEM ARE CONSISTENT. YOU DON'T GET--YOU DON'T GET A GREAT DISPARITY OF, ONE, PEOPLE SAYING ON THIS END THAT THIS PERSON IS TERRIBLE, AND THEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE ON THE OTHER END SAYING THAT THIS PERSON IS EXCELLENT. IT SORT OF FALLS IN THOSE CATEGORIES.
Q     OKAY. MY LAST QUESTION: IN YOUR SUMMARY OF MR. GARFINKEL, I NOTICED YOU SAID HE WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE LAW, THAT HE HAD A GOOD TEMPERAMENT, AND EXTENSIVE FAMILY COURT EXPERIENCE, AND YOU RATED HIM QUALIFIED, AND THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE RATED WELL-QUALIFIED, AND I'M TROUBLED BETWEEN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN--THAT SOUNDS LIKE WELL- QUALIFIED TO ME, AND I HAVE TROUBLE FIGURING OUT WHAT THE DISTINCTION IS BETWEEN THE TWO.
A     WELL, WE HAD THAT SAME PROBLEM. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ORIGINALLY WE HAD FOUR CATEGORIES: EXTREMELY WELL-QUALIFIED, WELL-QUALIFIED, QUALIFIED, AND NOT QUALIFIED. THE DISTINCTION, THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE GRAY AREA, BUT THE WELL-QUALIFIED PERSONS THAT WE FOUND IN THAT AREA HAD MORE EXPERIENCE, HAD HIGHER RATINGS IN TERMS OF TEMPERAMENT. THEY GRADED HIGHER. THEY RECEIVED HIGHER EVALUATIONS, AND THAT WAS--AND I MIGHT ADD, THE INVESTIGATION FOR THAT SEAT WAS QUITE EXTENSIVE BECAUSE NONE OF THE CANDIDATES HAD PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, EXCEPT FOR ONE ON THE MAGISTRATE'S LEVEL. AND BECAUSE THEY WERE YOUNG LAWYERS, WE DID IN DEPTH BACKGROUND STUDIES ON THEM BECAUSE WE WERE KEENLY AWARE THAT THE FAMILY COURT JUDGESHIPS TOUCH MORE LIVES THAN ANY OTHER JUDGESHIP. AND, SECONDLY, IT IS IMPORTANT IN THAT AREA THAT CONSIDERABLE EMPHASIS BE PLACED ON JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, AND THE TEMPERAMENT WITH THE LITIGANTS. AND IN SOME CASES, FOR EXAMPLE, COMPARE THAT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, WE PUT MORE EMPHASIS ON JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT THAN WE DID, SAY, ON THE COURT OF APPEALS WHERE VERY SELDOM DO JUDGES COME IN TOUCH WITH THE LITIGANTS. IT'S JUST LAWYERS GETTING TOGETHER.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THANK YOU, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE. REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: THANK YOU, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:

Q     JIM HODGES ACTUALLY ASKED THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK YOU, BUT I'M NOT FULLY SATISFIED WITH THE ANSWER. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SPECIFIC REASONS WHY MR. GARFINKEL WAS NOT RATED WELL-QUALIFIED. AND YOU SAY THERE WERE DIFFERENT EVALUATIONS; I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE HE FELL DOWN.
A     OKAY. (PAUSE, VIEWING DOCUMENT.) IT WAS---(MS. STACEY CONFERRED WITH MR. JOHNSON OUT OF HEARING.)
A     EVE HAS REMINDED ME THAT ACCORDING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO LIMIT OUR COMMENTS AND RATINGS AND THE EQUITIES OF THE PROCESS AND THE REASONS FOR THE RATINGS WERE TO BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IS THAT SATISFACTORY TO YOU?
Q     NO, IT'S OUR POSITION, MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OPEN AND ABOVEBOARD AND BEFORE THE PUBLIC.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY, IF I COULD ASSIST YOU THERE, THE ONLY REASON THEY WERE GOING TO BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM THE START WAS BECAUSE, AS YOU RECALL--YOU WON'T, BUT SHE WILL RECALL, THE COMMITTEE WANTED THE REASONS AND WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE EVALUATIONS WERE BEING MADE; WE WERE TOLD THAT Y'ALL HAD RULES WHICH CLAIM CONFIDENTIALITY ON THESE THINGS AND THAT THE ONLY THING Y'ALL WANTED TO PROVIDE WAS YOUR RATING.
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THIS COMMITTEE INDICATED FROM THE ONSET THAT IF WE WERE TO GIVE IT PROBATIVE VALUE, WE NEEDED TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROCESS, WE NEEDED TO KNOW THE REASONS AND THINGS. IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT Y'ALL COULD NOT CHANGE THOSE RULES UNTIL Y'ALL HAD A MEETING OF THE BAR. GIVEN THAT SCENARIO AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE OBVIOUSLY HAD A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THAT, WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE Y'ALL ON THE DESIRE FOR CONFIDENTIALITY BY RECEIVING THE RATING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AT LEAST GETTING THE REASONS FOR IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE BAR APPARENTLY HAD A CHANGE OF HEART ON THAT AND DECIDED RATHER--IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING, FURTHER, THAT THOSE RATINGS WOULD NOT BE RELEASED PUBLICLY UNTIL THIS COMMITTEE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE RATING, TO HEAR THE REASONS, AND TO DECIDE IF WE WERE GOING TO DO ANY INVESTIGATION TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE RATINGS. THE BAR CHOSE TO CHANGE ITS UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, AND TO, INSTEAD, NOTIFY ME IN WRITING THIS WEEK, AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, THAT IT WAS GOING TO RELEASE THEM AND WE WERE INFORMED AS LATE AS LAST NIGHT THAT Y'ALL WERE GOING TO RELEASE THEM PUBLICLY; SO, I DON'T THINK THAT THE BAR WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT OVER ANY OTHER SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP AND WOULD BE TREATED AS ANY OTHER WITNESS HERE; AND, SO, CONSEQUENTLY, WILL HAVE TO GIVE ITS TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC. YOU JUST WOULD NOT BE ACCORDED--WE HAD TRIED TO DO THAT FOR PURPOSES OF ACCOMMODATING YOUR DESIRE FOR CONFIDENTIALITY, NOT THIS COMMITTEE'S. THIS COMMITTEE FROM THE START WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HAVE EVERYTHING OUT IN THE OPEN AND TO RECEIVE YOUR RATING AND TO HAVE DONE THE QUESTIONING. IT WAS Y'ALL WHO WANTED THE CONFIDENTIALITY. IF I HAVE MISSTATED THAT ON THE PART OF THE COMMITTEE, ANY MEMBER, PLEASE, SO INDICATE.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME SAY THIS NOW.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: GO AHEAD, REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU ON YOUR QUESTIONING.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: IN KEEPING WITH THE CONFIDENTIALITY REQUEST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BAR, I DIDN'T ASK FOR A NAME, I JUST ASKED FOR THE REASON WHY HE WAS NOT FOUND HIGHLY QUALIFIED. SUPPOSEDLY NAMES ARE WHAT THEY WANT TO PROTECT.
A     (CONFERRED WITH MS. STACEY OUT OF HEARING.) MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
A     I THINK THE REASON IS OBVIOUS WHY I HAVE TO CONSULT WITH EVE, OUR CHAIRPERSON, OUR VICE CHAIRPERSON, INVOLVED IN DEPOSITIONS, AND I'M SUBSTITUTING, AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I GIVE YOU ACCURATE AND CANDID INFORMATION. THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAD WAS THAT WE WOULD GIVE YOU REASONS FOR THE RATINGS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATION. WE HAVE PUBLICLY PRONOUNCED OUR CONCLUSIONS AND WE STAND BY OUR EVALUATIONS AND RATINGS; AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO ANY DISPUTE WITH THE COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK THAT OUR POSITION WILL HAVE TO STAND FIRM TO OUR OBLIGATION NOT TO, IN PUBLIC, DISCLOSE THE REASONS FOR OUR RATING.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: LET ME RESPOND---
A     YOU KNOW, IF THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO GIVE OUR EVALUATIONS ANY WEIGHT, OBVIOUSLY THAT IS YOUR DISCRETION. AND IF YOU THINK THAT WE HAVE BEEN--THEY HAVE NO WEIGHT, OBVIOUSLY; BUT WE DO NOT WANT TO GET IN ANY ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMMITTEE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: LET ME SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I ALSO HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT IT'S NOT THE COMMITTEE THAT HAS CHANGED THE RULES. IT IS THE BAR. THE BAR HAS RENEGED ON ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. WE WANTED THE REASONING, AND WE INDICATED FROM THE START THAT WE FELT WE NEEDED TO HAVE THE REASONING AND TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR EVALUATION IN ORDER TO CHECK IT IF WE DESIRED TO CHECK IT, TO FURTHER LOOK INTO IT IF WE WANTED TO, AND WE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE THE BAR AND TO NOT HAVE ANY CLASH BY SIMPLY AGREEING THAT WHAT WE WOULD DO IS ALLOW Y'ALL TO JUST GIVE--IF YOU WOULD GIVE YOUR REASONS, WE WOULD TAKE THOSE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND HANDLE IT IN THAT MATTER; AND THEN THE RATING WOULD BE RELEASED, ALONG WITH OUR FINDINGS AT THE TIME OF THE REPORT. Y'ALL HAVE CHANGED THOSE RULES; AND, SO, CONSEQUENTLY, THIS COMMITTEE FROM DAY-ONE PREFERRED TO RECEIVE IT IN WRITING; AND UNLESS I AM WRONG ON THIS, THESE MEMBERS AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPRESSED TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BAR SOME SEVERE RESERVATIONS ABOUT A PROCESS WHERE Y'ALL WOULD GIVE A RATING, BUT WERE UNWILLING TO GIVE ANY REASONS FOR IT. AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO COMPROMISE THAT, SUCH THAT WE COULD AT LEAST GET THE REASONS, WE WERE WILLING TO DO IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE BAR HAS DECIDED TO CHANGE ITS POSITION, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU CANNOT--YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IN THIS LIGHT, Y'ALL ARE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOU ARE LIKE ANY OTHER LOBBY GROUP; AND, SO, CONSEQUENTLY, WE CANNOT ACCORD Y'ALL ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT. WE TRIED TO WORK OUT SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO GO FORWARD TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH SIDES. FOR WHATEVER REASON, Y'ALL HAVE CHOSEN TO ADJUST IT, AND I MYSELF CANNOT SEE WHERE YOU ARE ENTITLED UNDER THE LAW TO ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT.
A     WELL, OBVIOUSLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE NOT PETITIONING YOU FOR ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGED STATUS. IT IS OUR GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND SHARE WITH YOU AND AID YOU AND ASSIST YOU IN A MANNER OF EVALUATING THESE CANDIDATES. THAT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH OR DIFFERENTIATE US FROM ANYBODY ELSE. WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO CONFIDENTIALITY BECAUSE OUR REPRESENTATION TO THE PEOPLE WE INTERVIEWED WAS THAT WE WOULD HOLD THEIR EVALUATIONS IN CONFIDENCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, EACH OF US WERE REQUIRED TO TURN IN OUR NOTES SO THEY COULD BE DESTROYED SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO BREACH OF OUR COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE WE INTERVIEWED. I DO NOT VIEW THIS AS A SUBSTANTIVE AND MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THE COMMITTEE. IT MIGHT BE A PROCEDURAL DIFFERENCE, BUT OUR FINDINGS REMAIN THE SAME. AND THERE THEY ARE BASED ON NOT AN ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS EVALUATION, BUT ON AN OBJECTIVE PROCESS CONDUCTED BY EXPERIENCED AND OBJECTIVE PEOPLE, AND I REPRESENT TO YOU THAT IS OUR--THAT IS THE POSTURE IN WHICH WE STAND NOW. SO I WILL BE HAPPY TO GIVE YOU THE REASONS FOR OUR RATINGS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT AT THIS POINT WE CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONFIDENCE THAT PEOPLE PLACED IN US BY PUBLICLY SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THE REASONS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WELL, MY RESPONSE TO YOU WOULD BE THAT NO MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS ASKED FOR ANY NAMES. SECONDLY, ANY WITNESS WHO TOOK THAT CHAIR IN FAVOR OF A CANDIDATE OR AGAINST TO TESTIFY AGAINST A CANDIDATE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CROSS- EXAMINATION IN OPEN SESSION. WHAT THE BAR IS ASKING FOR IS A CLOSED SESSION. THAT IS A PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. NO OTHER WITNESS IS ACCORDED WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR.
A     WELL, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THERE ARE SOME DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN US AND OTHERS. WE ARE THE ONLY GROUP THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ON A DAILY BASIS. WE ARE THE ONLY GROUP THAT IS LICENSED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. WE ARE THE ONLY GROUP THAT HAS FORMED A COMMITTEE THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL SCREENING. WE ARE THE ONLY GROUP THAT HAVE SET ASIDE TALENT AND TIME AND ENGAGED IN A PROCESS TO BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THIS COMMITTEE; SO, THERE ARE SOME DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SAY THAT NO OTHER GROUP POSSESSES THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE SKILLS THAT WE HAVE TO CONDUCT AN EVALUATION AND TO SUBMIT TO THIS COMMITTEE FINDINGS SUCH AS WE HAVE DONE; SO, I THINK THAT WE DON'T WANT ANY PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT, BUT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THERE ARE SOME DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WELL, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW THE ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE BACK TO YOU THAT THE BAR HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE JUDICIARY BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP THAT YOU TALK ABOUT, BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT---
A     LET ME---
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ---THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS, ANYBODY WHO IS GOING TO TESTIFY IN FAVOR OR AGAINST ONE OF THESE CANDIDATES, THESE CANDIDATES WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THAT TESTIMONY, AND TO CONFRONT THAT TESTIMONY, AND TO OFFER ANYBODY, ANY TESTIMONY THEY WISH AGAINST IT; AND I MIGHT SAY THAT WE, IN RECEIVING YOUR REPORT, RECEIVE IT REALLY ON THE BASIS THAT A LOT OF IT IS HEARSAY. IT'S THE RESULT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION; WHEREAS, ALMOST ANY OTHER WITNESS WE TAKE HAS TO BE FIRST-PARTY TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. SO I TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, AS I SEE IT, YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO WORK OUT SOMETHING TO COOPERATE WITH Y'ALL, AND IT'S NOT US. Y'ALL HAVE CHANGED YOUR POSITION; AND, SO, I DON'T FEEL THAT WE HAVE ANY OBLIGATION UNDER ANY PREVIOUS ARRANGEMENTS TO TAKE THAT, YOUR REASONS, IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE THE REASONS FOR THAT, ANY ACCOMMODATION, ARE NOW GONE.
A     MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU KEEP IMPUTING TO US SOME MOTIVES THAT WE CHANGED THE RULES, AND IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RULES CHANGE HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO GIVE OUR REASONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I DON'T THINK, OBVIOUSLY, I WAS GOING COME OTHER HERE FOR ANY CONFRONTATION OF THIS COMMITTEE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I KNOW THAT.
A     I'M DUMB, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT STUPID. AND I HAVE OTHER OBLIGATIONS. I HAD TO ADJUST MY SCHEDULE TO BE HERE IN ORDER TO TRY TO BE OF SERVICE TO THIS COMMITTEE; AND, CERTAINLY, IF I HAD KNOWN THAT I WAS GOING TO COME OVER AND HAVE THIS CONFRONTATION ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO TESTIFY OVER HERE, I DAMN SURE WOULDN'T HAVE COME.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. JOHNSON, I KNOW THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT; BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU, WE MET WITH FORMER SENATOR POPE LAST WEEK, AND WE, THIS COMMITTEE, HAD ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF RECEIVING YOUR COMMENTS ON THE BASIS OF THAT AGREEMENT. NOW WE WERE--IT WAS REPRESENTED TO US THAT THE RATINGS WOULD NOT BE RELEASED, WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL WE FINISHED, WHICH WOULD GIVE THIS COMMITTEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO, TO RECEIVE THE MATERIAL AND TO DO ITS INVESTIGATION. THAT POSITION THAT SENATOR POPE REPRESENTED TO US, AND CONFIRMED AS LATE AS THURSDAY OF LAST WEEK, CHANGED OVER THE WEEKEND.
A     THIS REINFORCES THAT OLD THEORY THAT "WORDS ARE INADEQUATE TO EXPRESS ONE'S FEELINGS." PUT THAT IN THE BOOK.

(LAUGHTER.)

A     IT'S MY IMPRESSION THAT SENATOR POPE DID NOT HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING, THAT HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE WOULD GIVE OUR REASONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND HERE, AGAIN, I GUESS, IT'S LAWYERS TALKING TO LAWYERS AND THEY KEEP ON TALKING AND THEY NEVER DO ANY LISTENING, DO THEY?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THAT'S APPARENTLY WHY PEOPLE GET LAWYERS.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR.
SENATOR MOORE: I APPRECIATE AND REALIZE THE MARKED DISADVANTAGE THAT YOU ARE AT SITTING THERE NOT HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONVERSATIONS OR FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, BUT AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT--WELL, NOT IMPRESSION, I DISTINCTLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PROCESS WOULD GO ON BUT THAT THE RATINGS WOULD BE WITHHELD UNTIL THIS COMMITTEE COMPLETED ITS HEARING PROCESS OF THE CANDIDATES.
A     OH, IS THAT RIGHT?
SENATOR MOORE: YES, SIR.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WAS THE SPECIFIC REQUEST COUNSEL HAD MADE OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE BAR THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO FINISH DRAFTING HIS REPORT BEFORE THE RATINGS WERE RELEASED, AND THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT REAFFIRMED LAST THURSDAY AT ABOUT 12:45 ON THAT VERY POINT.
SENATOR MOORE: WELL, IF YOU WERE A D.A. IN A BASEBALL GAME, YOU CAME UP TO THE PLATE WITH BLINDFOLDS ON.

(LAUGHTER.)

A     WELL, FOR THE RECORD, I SEE SOME JUDGES IN HERE AND THEY WILL ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT I HAVEN'T GOT AN AVERSION TO DOING THAT.

(LAUGHTER.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.
A     OKAY.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: BUT I WANT TO REITERATE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE NAMES, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE REASONS.
A     WOULD YOU PERMIT ME TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL AND Y'ALL PROCEED, AND LET US GET BACK IN TOUCH WITH YOU?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: HOW LONG DO YOU NEED TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL, BECAUSE WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO IS ACCOMMODATE THE ROLL CALLS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT SOME OF THEM HAVE GOT TO GO ANSWER?
A     I NEED TO MAKE A TELEPHONE CALL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, WE'LL BREAK FOR 10 MINUTES. HOW ABOUT THAT? IF YOU NEED MORE TIME, HOLLER. THEY NEED TO GO ANSWER A ROLL CALL.

(RECESS FROM 10:10 A.M. UNTIL AT 10:30 A.M.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT.
A     (BY MR. LEEVY) MR. CHAIRMAN, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRIES, THE FIRST ONE BEING THE UNDERSTANDING REGARDING GIVING OUR RATINGS AND THE REASONS FOR THE RATINGS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, I TALKED WITH OUR CHAIRMAN, THE FORMER SENATOR POPE, AND HE ADVISED ME THAT HE INFORMED THE COMMITTEE THAT OUR BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAD A SPECIAL MEETING TO AMEND THE RULES AND THAT WE WOULD ONLY GIVE OUR REASONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND HE ALSO STATED TO ME THAT AS PRECEDENT FOR THAT, THAT LAST WEEK HE MET WITH THE COMMITTEE AT THE TIME THAT YOU HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION THE NAMES OF THE FAMILY COURT NOMINEES, AND HE GAVE YOU THE REASONS FOR THOSE RATINGS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. HE, ALSO, THE ISSUE WAS RAISED ABOUT RELEASING TO THE PUBLIC OUR RATINGS, AND HE SAID THAT LAST WEEK HE WROTE YOU, HAD FASHIONED YOU A LETTER LAST FRIDAY AND INFORMED YOU THAT THE RATINGS WOULD BE RELEASED TUESDAY.
MS. STACEY: TODAY.
A     THE RATINGS WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE CANDIDATES NO LATER THAN LAST TUESDAY, AND THEY WOULD BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC TODAY; AND HE SAID HE FAXED EVERYTHING AND MAILED YOU A LETTER TO THAT EFFECT. AND THOSE WERE THE TWO ISSUES THAT I DISCUSSED WITH HIM. IN TERMS OF THE CRITICAL ONE, OF GIVING OUR REASONS FOR THE RATINGS, HE SAID THERE HAD BEEN CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT, SO MUCH SO THAT THEY HAD A SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR AND THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE THAT THE REASONS BE GIVEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE REASON FOR THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE SOME SITTING JUDGES UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND ONE OF THE COMPELLING REASONS WE THOUGHT IT BE IMPERATIVE THAT IT BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, SOME OF THE LAWYERS ARE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS, AND THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY WOULD TALK TO US IN CONFIDENCE IS THAT THEIR NAMES WOULD NOT BE REVEALED AND THINGS NOT BE DISCLOSED; SO, WE MADE THE COMMITMENT TO THEM THAT IT WOULD BE DONE IN CONFIDENCE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WELL, MY RESPONSE TO YOU, OF COURSE, WOULD BE THAT WE DID PROCEED LAST WEEK TO HEAR SENATOR POPE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT IT WAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE DOING THAT TO ACCOMMODATE THE BAR BECAUSE OF THE BAR'S INITIAL INSISTENCE THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GIVE US THE REASONS FOR THEIR RATING. AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS NEVER BEEN THE LEADER IN INSISTING UPON DOING THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT WAS GIVEN TO Y'ALL AS AN ACCOMMODATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RESULTS WOULD NOT BE RELEASED, WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR YOUR REASONS WITHOUT ASKING FOR THE IDENTIFY OF ANYONE, AND THEN TO HAVE OUR INVESTIGATORS FOLLOW UP AND DO ANY INVESTIGATION THEY DESIRED REGARDING ANY OF YOUR FINDINGS OR REASONS. NOW, OF COURSE, WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION WHERE IF WE GO OUT AND DO AN INVESTIGATION, IT'S PUBLIC; AND, SO, THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON, THOSE WITNESSES WOULD ALL BE ON NOTICE AND EVERYTHING; SO, THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON TO KEEP THE MATTER, YOUR REASONS, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE IDENTIFY OF THE PEOPLE. WE ARE ASKING FOR YOUR REASONS FOR THE FINDINGS, AND IT IS THE BAR THAT IS INSISTENT UPON, YOU KNOW, HAVING IT DONE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. THIS COMMITTEE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THAT UNDERSTANDING THROUGH THE FIRST SCREENINGS, AND THEN I SUBSEQUENTLY GET THIS LETTER IN THE MAIL THIS WEEK INFORMING ME THAT THE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE RELEASED ON THURSDAY. I CONSULTED COUNSEL. REPRESENTATIVE HODGES, MYSELF, AND COUNSEL HAD A DISCUSSION WITH SENATOR POPE, TOLD HIM OF OUR RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS COURSE, AND I WOULD HAVE TO ASK MR. COUICK--MR. COUICK TALKED TO HIM LATER LAST EVENING, AND WE WERE INFORMED, I BELIEVE, THAT THE BAR HAD--THE COMMITTEE OR THE--MR. COUICK, WHY DON'T YOU TELL THAT PART SO THAT I GET THAT FIRSTHAND.
MR. COUICK: I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT MR. JOHNSON SAYS, BUT IT STOPS AT A CERTAIN POINT. THE POINT IS, THE BAR BOARD OF GOVERNORS DID MEET. THEY DID INSIST UPON CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE REASONS BEING GIVEN. THIS COMMITTEE RECEIVED THAT AND AGREED TO THAT PROPOSAL WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO KEEP YOUR REASONS CONFIDENTIAL, THEN THE RATINGS HAD TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL THE COMMITTEE RELEASED ITS REPORT; AND THAT WAS EXPLAINED TO SENATOR POPE PRIOR TO THE PROCESS BEGINNING, AND THIS COMMITTEE GAVE ITS REASON FOR WANTING THAT CONFIDENTIALITY; AND THAT WAS THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO NOT EXPLAIN YOUR RATINGS, JUST GOING TO HAVE A BARE RATING FLOATING OUT THERE IN PUBLIC, THAT WOULD PUT TREMENDOUS PRESSURE ON THIS COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF ITS ACTIONS. IF SOMEONE CAME FORWARD WITH A "NOT QUALIFIED" RATING, LET'S SAY, THAT PERSON SITTING IN THAT CHAIR WHERE YOU ARE NOW WOULD HAVE TO REACT TO A DIFFERENT TYPE OF QUESTIONING THAN IF THAT RATING WERE NOT OUT THERE. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE WELL THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF; BUT IF HE DID NOT KNOWING THE REASONS FOR THAT RATING, HOW WOULD HE BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO IT? LET ME CONTINUE. SO THE PROCESS BEGAN LAST WEEK; SENATOR POPE AFFIRMED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE DONE IN CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION. THIS COMMITTEE REQUESTED OF HIM, AS I RELATED EARLIER, THAT NOT ONLY WOULD THE REASONS BE GIVEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT THE RATINGS WOULD BE GIVEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THE BAR WOULD WITHHOLD PUBLICATION OF THOSE UNTIL THE REPORT WAS ADOPTED SO THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE UNDULY INFLUENCED BY YOUR BARE RATINGS BEING PUBLICIZED. WHAT HAS CHANGED, MR. JOHNSON, IS NOT THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF KEEPING THE RATINGS CONFIDENTIAL THROUGH THE PROCESS WAS NEVER PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS. THAT WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED WITH YOUR RATING COMMITTEE AND ITS CHAIRMAN. WHAT HAS CHANGED, IS KEEPING THE RATINGS CONFIDENTIAL. AS I SAY, AND AS SENATOR MCCONNELL SAID, THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY IS AT THE BAR'S REQUEST. THIS COMMITTEE NEVER WANTED ANY PART OF IT TO BE CONFIDENTIAL. THEY WANTED THE WHOLE PROCESS TO BE OPEN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     I THINK OUR OBLIGATION AS A SCREENING COMMITTEE, AND I THINK THE BAR'S OBLIGATION, TOO, IS TO--OUR FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO ENSURE FAIRNESS IN THE HEARING PROCESS FOR THE CANDIDATES; AND I THINK WHEN WE FOCUS SO MUCH ON CONFIDENTIALITY, WE LOSE WHAT SHOULD BE OUR SIMPLE FOCUS AND THAT'S ON WHAT'S FAIR TO THE CANDIDATES. AND I JUST THINK IT'S TERRIBLY UNFAIR IF I GET A "QUALIFIED" VERSUS "WELL-QUALIFIED" RATING AND I'M A CANDIDATE AND WE RECEIVE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION EVEN THE REASONS FOR THAT, AND I'M SITTING OUT THERE AND HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY WHEN I GET UP THERE TO KNOW WHY THAT I HAVE RECEIVED A LESSER GRADE RATING THAN ANOTHER CANDIDATE, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S FAIR TO ME AS A CANDIDATE, AND I THINK WE--THE BAR HAS FOCUSED SO MUCH ON THIS CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUE, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU AND MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE WELL-TRAINED IN THE LAW, AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE LEARN IN LAW SCHOOL IS THAT OUR FOCUS SHOULD ALWAYS BE ON WHAT IS FAIR TO THE LITIGANTS; AND I THINK IN THIS CASE WE HAVE LOST THAT FOCUS AND THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO RATINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED.
A     ON THE CONTRARY, REPRESENTATIVE HODGES, WE HAVE GOTTEN ON THIS ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY, BUT THE FOCUS AND THE CONCENTRATION WAS DEFINITELY ON THE PROCESS BEING FAIR. THOSE CANDIDATES WHO HAVE ASPIRED TO THESE POSITIONS WERE INFORMED OF THE RATINGS. EACH OF THEM HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION OUR DECISIONS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I AM INFORMED THAT THE GREENVILLE NEWS IS REPORTING THIS MORNING THAT A CANDIDATE WAS FOUND "NOT QUALIFIED," AND THAT CANDIDATE GOT A PERSONAL CALL FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, AND THE CHAIRMAN REPORTED THAT IT WAS SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE OF A 30-MINUTE CONVERSATION, AND THAT CANDIDATE WAS GIVEN A DETAILED EXPLANATION REGARDING OUR FINDINGS. SO IT IS NOT A PROCESS WHERE WE MAKE THE DECISIONS AND DON'T COMMUNICATE IT TO THE CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INFORMED OF THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION AND THAT CANDIDATE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. SO, IF YOU QUESTION HIM ABOUT IT, THE CANDIDATE WILL KNOW.
Q     I PRESUME YOU GAVE THAT CANDIDATE OR ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT YOUR FINDING TO THE COMMITTEE, IF YOU SAID THAT IN THE INSTANCE OF "QUALIFIED" VERSUS "WELL-QUALIFIED" THAT ALL OF THEM HAD THE CHANCE TO PRESENT FURTHER EVIDENCE OR FURTHER INFORMATION TO YOU SO THAT YOU COULD PERHAPS CHANGE YOUR OPINION; IS THAT TRUE?
A     MR. HODGES, I REPORT TO YOU THAT IN THE INSTANCE WHERE WE TOOK THAT STAND, IT WAS A--THE DECISION WAS MADE; WE RECHECKED OURSELVES; WE RECHECKED SOURCES; WE EXPANDED OUR INVESTIGATION, AND THE PROCESS WAS EXTREMELY FAIR.
Q     WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FAMILY COURT RACE NOW. I DON'T WANT TO FOCUS--I'M REALLY FOCUSING ON THE PROCESS HERE AND NOT THAT RACE, AND THESE SAME QUESTIONS WERE ASKED OF SENATOR POPE LAST WEEK. I ASKED HIM THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT YOU DO WHEN A CANDIDATE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE RATING, AND IS THERE A MECHANISM AVAILABLE FOR THAT CANDIDATE TO ADDRESS THAT THROUGH THE BAR PROCESS; AND IT'S A CONCERN. IT'S NOT A NEW CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN RAISED, AND I JUST--THERE APPARENTLY IS NOT. IS THAT TRUE?
A     THAT IS TRUE BECAUSE WHAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE THE VERDICT IS RENDERED, BECAUSE THE LITIGANTS DON'T LIKE THE VERDICT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN MAKE A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND WE GO BACK AND CHANGE OUR DECISION.
Q     BUT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO AN APPEAL IN COURT, DON'T THEY?
A     THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THIS COMMITTEE.
Q     OKAY.
A     YOU ARE THE APPELLATE LEVEL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE:

Q     ON APPEAL THOUGH, WOULDN'T WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAD TO MAKE THAT DECISION?
A     I WANT TO GIVE IT TO YOU. I CAME HERE TODAY TO GIVE IT TO YOU, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT TO YOU IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Q     ASSUME THAT YOU GIVE US THAT INFORMATION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE COME BACK OUT HERE, HOW DEEP CAN WE GO INTO QUESTIONING THE CANDIDATE IN REGARDS TO THE INFORMATION IF WHAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO US IS--IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE FOLLOWING A SPRING, YOU KNOW, ONE LEAK LEADS TO ANOTHER, LIKE YOU HAVE ALREADY SAID. YOU KNOW, I JUST--I HAVE A REAL DIFFICULT TIME; IF YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE US THE DETAILS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, I THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THE CANDIDATES AS THEY ARE SITTING THERE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION SO THAT THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO IT.
A     I AGREE.
Q     NOW WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU--IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE TAKING INFORMATION YOU HAVE GIVEN TO US IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND FOLLOWING UP WITH THAT ON THE CANDIDATE, HOW CONFIDENTIAL DOES IT BECOME AT THAT POINT?
A     WELL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SCREEN THAT AND EVALUATE THAT, IF THAT INFORMATION IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON, BUT THAT WOULD BE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE.
Q     LET ME FOLLOW UP, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, ON THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING, WHEN YOU ARE TALKING WITH THE BAILIFFS OR THE COURT PERSONNEL, THAT KIND OF THING, DO THEY SIGN SOMETHING THAT SAYS THAT WHATEVER THEY SAY WILL BE HELD IN CONFIDENCE?
A     NO, BUT MY OPENING--OUR OPENING STATEMENT IS THAT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING WITH YOU IS IN CONFIDENCE AND THAT YOUR IDENTITY WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED.
Q     OKAY, SO---
A     AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU READ IT, BUT WE WENT AS FAR AS TEARING UP OUR NOTES FROM THE INTERVIEWS; EVERYBODY WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP NOTES AND WRITE DOWN INFORMATION.
Q     WELL, I STILL JUST HAVE A GUT FEELING, SOMETHING THAT GRINDS IN ME, WHEN YOU ARE TAKING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT WILLING TO COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS PUBLIC, AND WE ARE TAKING THESE STATEMENTS AND BASICALLY MAKING A DECISION THAT YOU GIVE US, YOU KNOW, ON THAT, AND, YET, IF A BAILIFF SAYS SOMETHING OR SOMEBODY SAYS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OURSELVES TO QUESTION THESE INDIVIDUALS, IF WE ARE GOING--BECAUSE, MR. JOHNSON, THE PROBLEM IS ULTIMATELY THIS COMMITTEE IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE ULTIMATE DECISION, OKAY.
A     RIGHT.
Q     AND, YET, AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE A GROUP WHICH YOU HAVE SAID REPRESENTS THE LEGAL COMMUNITY; SO, HOW MUCH CREDENCE--YOU KNOW, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY TELL ME, WELL, THAT IS LEFT UP TO US HOW MUCH CREDENCE WE GIVE THIS REPORT.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT AS MUCH AS I CAN, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM IS IN THE CONFIDENTIALITY ASPECT OF THIS IS WHEN YOU ARE TEARING UP THE THINGS--YOU KNOW, HOW CAN A SITTING JUDGE WHO IS SAID THAT THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED OR JUST QUALIFIED AND NOT WELL-QUALIFIED, WHAT JUSTICE IS THERE FOR THEM TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE SAID THAT THEY CANNOT RESPOND TO IN AN OPEN FORUM TO LET US KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON? YOU KNOW, I JUST--YOU KNOW, THIS WHOLE PROCESS JUST, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO BE A GAME, YOU KNOW, TO ME.
A     WELL, IT IS NOT A GAME. IT IS A VERY SERIOUS UNDERTAKING. IF WE WERE THE EXCLUSIVE BODY TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION, I COULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN; BUT ALL WE ARE DOING, WE ARE JUST ONE COMPONENT IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OUR DECISIONS WILL BE RUBBER-STAMPED BY YOU OR ENTIRELY ENDORSED BY YOU. FORTUNATELY, YOU HAVE HAD CONSIDERABLE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, IT IS OUR INFORMATION, AND WE HAVE BEEN IMPRESSED WITH THE COMMITTEE'S RESEARCH ON THESE CANDIDATES. WE ARE JUST ONE ELEMENT IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS, AND OUR PROCEDURES REQUIRE US TO DO IT IN THIS MANNER. IF IT HAS CREDIBILITY, IF IT HAS VALUE TO YOU, WE THINK YOU SHOULD ACCEPT IT. BUT I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE HERE GIVING YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT WE THINK THAT WE ARE SOME "ALMIGHTY BODY" SITTING UP HERE SAYING "THESE ARE THE FINDINGS AND THERE ARE NO OTHER POSSIBLE FINDINGS." OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE FREE TO DIFFER FROM US, BUT OUR RESEARCH LED US TO THESE CONCLUSIONS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:

Q     YES, SIR, EVERYTHING I WANTED TO SAY, MR. JOHNSON, HAS BEEN SAID AND I AM CERTAIN THAT YOU KNOW BY NOW THAT I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE BAR'S PROCESS.
A     SURE.
Q     NOT THE IDEA, BUT THE PROCESS THAT YOU UNDERGO TO GET THE INFORMATION AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO WITH IT. I HAVE HAD THIS PROBLEM FOR A LITTLE MORE THAN A YEAR, AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT AT LENGTH. BUT LET ME DRAW THIS ANALOGY FOR YOU: THIS BODY, IN MY OPINION, SITS IN JUDGMENT OF THE CANDIDATES, THEIR QUALIFICATIONS, AND IF WE WERE TO ANALOGIZE THIS TO A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, AN ACTUAL TRIAL, AND YOU WERE THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ONE OF THE CANDIDATES OR THE LITIGANTS, AND THE JUDGE, US, DECIDED WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT HEARSAY EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE NEGATIVE TO YOUR CLIENT, YOU WOULD SCREAM BLOODY MURDER, WOULDN'T YOU?
A     THE ANALOGY THAT YOU HAVE OUTLINED, IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS.
Q     HOW SO?
A     THE ANALOGY SHOULD BE: HOW DOES THE PROCESS COMPARE TO THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST WHERE YOU STAND OUT IN THE LOBBY AND SHAKE HANDS WITH PEOPLE AND THEY SAY, "I AM A GOOD CANDIDATE," OR SOMEBODY FROM THEIR HOMETOWN COMES OUT IN THE LOBBY AND TELLS YOU THAT THEY WOULD MAKE A GOOD JUDGE, OR SOMEBODY WRITES YOU A LETTER AND TELLS YOU THAT THEY WOULD BE A GOOD JUDGE; YOU DON'T KNOW THEM, BUT---
Q     WELL, I---
A     ---THIS IS THE PROCESS.
Q     AND THE REASON BEING, SHAKING HANDS IN THE LOBBY IS NOT COMING BEFORE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, WHERE WE GET TO ASK THE QUESTIONS OF THE SWORN WITNESSES OR AFFIDAVITS. WHAT THE BAR HAS ASKED US TO DO UP UNTIL LAST THURSDAY WAS TO ACCEPT THEIR RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, UNTIL LAST THURSDAY WHERE YOU AGREED AFTER EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION TO MAYBE DO IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
A     RIGHT.
Q     BEFORE THAT TIME, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE US ANYTHING BUT QUALIFIED, AND NOT QUALIFIED, AND WELL-QUALIFIED, AND WE WERE TO COME IN HERE AND RUBBER-STAMP IT. THAT'S ALL WE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY DONE.
A     YOU DON'T HAVE TO RUBBER-STAMP IT. YOU STILL HAVE THE---
Q     LET'S BE REALISTIC, MR. JOHNSON, ONCE YOU GIVE YOUR RATING, PUBLISH IT IN THE NEWSPAPER AND IT GOES OUT ACROSS THE STATE, THIS IS THE HIGH AND MIGHTY SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO THINK ABOUT THAT?
A     WELL, I HOPE THEY WILL BE IMPRESSED WITH IT, BUT I HOPE---
Q     EXACTLY.
A     AND THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA, THAT THEY BE IMPRESSED WITH IT; I HOPE, JUST LIKE IN ANY OTHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHERE YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES, THAT YOU WILL IGNORE SOME AND BE IMPRESSED WITH SOME.
Q     WELL, WE DON'T HAVE YOUR WITNESSES IS OUR PROBLEM.
A     WE ARE THE WITNESSES, AS A RESULT OF OUR PROCESS. I SEE YOUR RESERVATIONS ABOUT PARADING ALL 30 OF THESE PEOPLE UP HERE SO YOU CAN CROSS-EXAMINE THEM AND FIND OUT WHAT THEY SAID, AND WHY DIDN'T THEY SAY OTHER THINGS. WE HAVE DONE THAT; AND AS A RESULT OF OUR PROCESS, WE CAME TO THESE CONCLUSIONS. BUT OBVIOUSLY, REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY, YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY THOSE RATINGS.
Q     QUITE FRANKLY---
A     YOU CAN FIND---
Q     ---I DON'T EVEN THINK I CAN ENTERTAIN THEM.
A     THAT IS ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT YOU CAN'T IGNORE THEM.
Q     I THINK I WILL HAVE TO.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR MOORE.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     WELL, MR. BEATTY WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS ANALOGY; I WAS GOING SAY THAT IT SEEMS TO ME, I.S., THAT--WELL, THE YEARS I HAVE BEEN HERE, I HAVE HEARD ABOUT HOW LEARNED AND HOW GREAT I.S. LEEVY JOHNSON IS IN THE COURTROOM AND WHAT A GREAT DEFENSE ATTORNEY. THEY TELL ME ONLY PERRY MASON WINS MORE THAN YOU DO.
A     IS THIS BEING TAKEN DOWN?

(LAUGHTER.)

A     SEND ME A COPY OF THAT.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THAT'S WHY THE T.V. CAMERA IS HERE.
Q     THE ANALOGY, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT; IT'S AS IF WE'RE THE JURY AND THE BAR HAS BECOME THE JUDGE. AND IF YOU WERE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY THAT SOMEONE CAME IN--YOU ARE ASKING US TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AFTER THE JUDGE HAS MADE HIS DECISION, BUT THE FACTS COULD ONLY BE GIVEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BY THE PROSECUTOR. I BELIEVE--TALKING ABOUT SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER, I BELIEVE YOU WOULD HAVE "MISTRIAL" FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
A     I WOULD.
Q     YOU KNOW, WE--I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE BAR; BUT I ALSO WANT TO HEAR FROM OTHER FOLKS. NOW THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN HANDED OUT BEFORE US AND THE WAY THAT IT'S UNFOLDED, QUITE HONESTLY, WHAT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT IF WE HAD A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA POULTRY ASSOCIATION, THE WAY THE THING HAS BEEN HANDLED? - IF WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT HAVING--Y'ALL WANT THE CONFIDENTIALITY, YOU WANT EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND THE CANDIDATE HAS TO GET UP AND HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. HE CAN'T REFUTE ANYTHING. BUT, YET, WE TRY TO WORK THAT OUT AND SAY WE WANT TO RECEIVE IT, BUT LOW AND BEHOLD BEFORE WE CAN RECEIVE AND HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE CANDIDATES AND EVERYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK, YOU PUBLISH THE RATINGS. NOW HOW FAIR IS THAT, I.S.?
A     WELL, I THINK THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE RATING CAME AS A RESULT OF THE COMMITTEE COULDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT THESE HEARINGS WOULDN'T BE CONCLUDED. WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES WOULD BE SCREENED LAST WEEK, AND I THINK--(PAUSE)---
Q     AND YOU KNOW WHAT--PARDON ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU. WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN FINISHED, BUT WE SPENT SO MANY HOURS WITH YOUR GROUP TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE COULD DO TO ACCOMMODATE Y'ALL'S CONFIDENTIALITY QUESTION.
A     WELL, THAT--YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME GROWING PAINS, SENATOR; AND SOMEBODY COMMENTED TO ME OUTSIDE, "BOY, YOU ARE ON THE HOT SEAT," AND I DON'T MIND IT, AND I THINK THIS IS A HEALTHY EXCHANGE, AND IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSULT WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA POULTRY ASSOCIATION BEFORE---

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     NOW I'VE GOT SOME GOOD FRIENDS IN THERE. DON'T YOU MESS WITH THAT.
A     I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE A SAY.
SENATOR MOORE: REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE THAT WE ARE NOT VERY HAPPY WITH WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED HERE THE LAST FEW DAYS.
A     I BELIEVE RAY CHARLES COULD SEE THAT.

(LAUGHTER.)

REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: SO IN VIEW OF ALL THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE HAD, OUR CANDIDATES SAT PATIENTLY AND WAITED ON US LAST WEEK, DIDN'T GET TO BE HEARD, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR PROCEDURE NOW AND PUT THIS QUESTION ASIDE FOR THE TIME BEING.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, COUNSEL NEEDS TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THESE QUESTIONS RELATE TO MR. GARFINKEL'S RATING BY THE BAR, NOT TO ANY GENERAL DISCUSSION.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     IN MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH SENATOR POPE LAST WEEK, MR. JOHNSON, IN GOING OVER THE NINTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT SEAT #1 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BAR, HIS COMMENTS, AND WE NOTED, THE STAFF DID, THAT MR. GARFINKEL WAS RATED AS QUALIFIED AS OPPOSED TO WELL-QUALIFIED BECAUSE HE HAD NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE AND HE HAD RELATIVELY LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE. DID YOU GIVE MR. GARFINKEL AN OPPORTUNITY AFTER DEVELOPING THIS RATING TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HE HAD RELATIVELY LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE?
A     I CANNOT PERSONALLY ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I DIDN'T--I DIDN'T--(PAUSE)---
Q     BUT YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER HE WAS QUALIFIED OR WELL-QUALIFIED, DID YOU NOT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     SO YOU TOOK THE ANSWER OF WHOEVER GAVE THAT QUALIFICATION OF RELATIVELY LIMITED EXPERIENCE, YOU ACCEPTED THAT AS BEING WELL-FOUNDED?
A     OH, ABSOLUTELY NOT. THE PROCEDURE WAS THAT THE COMMITTEES INVESTIGATING DIFFERENT CANDIDATES CAME BACK WITH THEIR FINDINGS. THEN THEIR FINDINGS WERE DISCUSSED AMONG THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE. THEN A VOTE WAS TAKEN.
Q     BUT THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY---
A     I DIDN'T RUBBER-STAMP THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
Q     BUT THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR MR. GARFINKEL TO RESPOND TO THAT ASSERTION OF RELATIVELY LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
A     I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T---
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT QUESTION OF THE CANDIDATE LATER, AND MOVE ON NOW.
Q     (BY MR. COUICK) MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MR. JOHNSON, YOUR APPLICATION PROCESS, DOES IT EMPLOY A WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE---
A     IT DOES.
Q     ---TO THE CANDIDATE?
A     NO, NO, NO, NOT A WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE, NO.
Q     HOW DO YOU DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES IF THEY ARE A SITTING JUDGE AND OPINIONS THEY HAVE ISSUED, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?
A     (PAUSE.) I DON'T THINK WE ASKED THAT QUESTION.
Q     MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW WOULD---
A     WE DIDN'T GET INTO THAT.
Q     MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MR. JOHNSON, HOW WOULD YOU DETERMINE IF THERE WERE ANY ETHICS INFRACTIONS?
A     WE WROTE TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, WE WROTE TO THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE, AND--(PAUSE)---
Q     AND THOSE WOULD COVER MATTERS AS AN ATTORNEY; FURTHER, THOUGH HOW WOULD YOU DETERMINE IF THEY HAD VIOLATED THE ETHICS LAW IN THEIR CANDIDACY FOR THIS POSITION?
A     WE DIDN'T GET INTO THAT. WE WOULD--WE YIELDED TO THIS COMMITTEE.
Q     MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT YOU MAKE YOUR OWN RECOMMENDATION AS TO A RATING, BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK THESE MATTERS OUT? MR. JOHNSON, DID YOU CHECK TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY PAST ARRESTS OR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OF THESE INDIVIDUALS?
A     I KNOW IN SOME OF THE INTERVIEWS THAT WAS DONE.
Q     BUT DID YOU CHECK THE DOCKETS OR THE RECORDS, THE CRIMINAL RECORDS, OF EACH COUNTY WHERE THESE FOLKS RESIDED?
A     NO.
Q     DID YOU SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CIVIL JUDGMENTS THAT HAD BEEN ENTERED AGAINST THESE INDIVIDUALS?
A     NO.
Q     DID YOU ALLOW ANY PERSON TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE COMMITTEE'S DELIBERATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE FOLKS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED? LET'S SAY THAT YOU HAD A JUDGE, A SITTING JUDGE, THAT WAS INTERESTED IN HIS FRIEND BILL HOWELL BEING ELECTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, DID THEY HAVE OR WERE THEY ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH YOUR COMMITTEE?
A     WE SOLICITED THEM. WE WENT OUT--(PAUSE)---
Q     HOW ABOUT IF IT WERE UNSOLICITED?
A     YES, I MEAN, WE WANTED VERY MUCH TO GET AS MUCH INPUT AS WE COULD. WE DIDN'T PRECLUDE ANYONE FROM THE PROCESS.
Q     SO IF SOMEONE UNSOLICITED CONTACTED YOUR COMMITTEE TO OFFER WORDS OF ENDORSEMENT, OR WHATEVER, YOU ALLOWED THAT TO IMPACT THE PROCESS?
A     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     DO YOU THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE?
A     YES. BECAUSE ALL OF THEM ARE POTENTIAL LITIGANTS, ALL OF THEM HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CANDIDATES.
Q     HOW ABOUT JUDGES NOW?
A     YES.
Q     SITTING JUDGES?
A     ABSOLUTELY.
Q     DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA?
A     I DO.
Q     WELL, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT JUDGES ARE TO BE ELECTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NOT BY SOME SORT OF SELF-SELECTION METHOD OF THE JUDICIARY?
A     THE FALLACY OF THAT THEORY IS WE--JUST BECAUSE A JUDGE SAYS ANOTHER JUDGE IS QUALIFIED OR UNQUALIFIED IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. THAT IS JUST INFORMATION THAT YOU PUT IN THE POT AND EVALUATE.
Q     MR. JOHNSON, HOW OFTEN DO YOU APPEAR IN COURT BEFORE JUDGES?
A     QUITE FREQUENTLY.
Q     HOW ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMITTEE?
A     THE SAME, I WOULD SAY.
Q     I UNDERSTAND THAT PROBABLY SOME OF THESE JUDGES THAT CONTACTED YOU, YOU APPEAR BEFORE FROM TIME TO TIME?
A     THAT'S TRUE.
Q     WOULD IT NOT BE A HARD PROPOSITION FOR YOU TO TAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOT GIVE THEM LOTS OF WEIGHT?
A     LET THE RECORD REFLECT, HELL, NO, I AM NOT SCARED OF ANY JUDGE IN THIS STATE. I DON'T THINK ANY JUDGE IN THIS STATE IS SCARED OF ME, AND I WOULDN'T--IF I HAVE A FEELING ANY WAY OR THE OTHER, I'M GOING TO STAND WITH THAT POSITION, AND THAT--HELL, NO. NO.
Q     AND I APOLOGIZE IF IT APPEARS GEARED TOWARDS YOU, MR. JOHNSON, I'M ASKING ABOUT ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMITTEE.
A     OH, NO, PLEASE, DON'T APOLOGIZE, BUT--(PAUSE)---
Q     BUT ANY COMMITTEE MEMBER, WOULD IT NOT BE A HARD SITUATION?
A     OH, NO. NO. NO, THAT IS ONE THING THAT I UNEQUIVOCALLY SAY TO YOU, THAT NONE OF THOSE MEMBERS WOULD BE INFLUENCED BY THAT, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE GOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THAT JUDGE IN THE FUTURE. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q     I GUESS MY QUESTION IS MORE GENERAL: WHY SHOULD JUDGES HAVE ANY IMPACT IN THE SELECTION OF OTHER JUDGES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE UP FOR RE-ELECTION?
A     BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEIR COLLEAGUES. THEY KNOW THEIR WRITING ABILITY. THEY KNOW THE DECISIONS THAT THEY MAKE. AND THEY HAVE A GOOD GRASP OF WHAT IS A GOOD JUDGE AND WHAT IS NOT A GOOD JUDGE.
Q     MR. JOHNSON,---
A     SO YOU CAN--WE AREN'T ROBOTS. AND AS YOU KNOW FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE, THAT ONE OF THE QUALITIES OF A GOOD JUDGE IS TO PICK UP ON CUES AND TO READ WITNESSES; SO, YOU KNOW WHEN A JUDGE IS GIVING YOU AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF ONE OF HIS COLLEAGUES, OR IF HE IS IN A PROMOTIONAL MODE, OR IF HE IS IN A VINDICTIVE MODE; SO, I DON'T THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE JUDGES, THAT THEY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THE PROCESS.
Q     MR. JOHNSON, I GUESS THAT I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU EXCEPT THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO TELL HOW MUCH JUDGES IMPACTED YOUR DECISION BECAUSE THE RATING IS GIVEN, AND WE ARE NOT ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF THE COMMENTS; AND, SO, MY CONCERN IS, AND I ASK THIS AS A QUESTION, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT IF A JUDGE CAME BEFORE YOU AND OFFERED A COMMENT, WOULDN'T IT BE TANTAMOUNT TO BEING IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND IF ALL OF YOUR FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GETTING TOGETHER AND SELECTING YOU FOR REELECTION, AS OPPOSED TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS? - THIS BODY IS CHARGED WITH JUDGING JUDGES, NOT BY WHAT OTHER JUDGES SAY OR WHAT THEY WANT; IT IS BY WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PUBLIC.
A     I--IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO GIVE YOU A PERCENTAGE OF THE NUMBER OF JUDGES THAT WERE INTERVIEWED, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER THAT THEY WOULD SKEW THE RESULTS. IT WAS NOT THAT TYPE OF PROCESS. AND HERE AGAIN, IF SOMEONE REPRESENTED THAT A PERSON GAVE A JUDGE A HIGH RATING, SOME OTHER JUDGE GAVE A JUDGE A HIGH RATING, THAT HAD TO BE BALANCED WITH THE OTHER RESPONSES THAT WE GOT; SO, I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE PROCESS WAS UNDULY INFLUENCED OR INFLUENCED BY JUDGES.
Q     MR. JOHNSON, YOU RECEIVED NAMES FROM EACH OF THE APPLICANT CANDIDATES THAT FOLKS SAID THAT THEY WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO INTERVIEW; DID YOU INTERVIEW ALL THOSE PEOPLE?
A     YES.
Q     SO IF THERE WERE FOLKS THAT WERE NOT INTERVIEWED, IF A CANDIDATE IS AWARE OF PERSONS THAT HE, NAMES THAT HE PUT FORWARD THAT WEREN'T INTERVIEWED, SOMEHOW THERE WAS A MISTAKE?
A     NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE. WHO WOULD PUT DOWN THE NAME OF A PERSON THAT THEY DON'T THINK SOMEBODY IS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT THEM? - I MEAN, THE NAMES WERE GIVEN, FOR EXAMPLE, I QUESTIONED WHY WOULD--ONE OF THE PERSONS EVERYBODY NAMED WAS THEIR BANKER; AND WHY WOULD YOU ASK A BANKER ABOUT A PERSON? WHAT IS THAT BANKER GOING TO SAY? - OH, YES, GREATEST THING SINCE LIGHT-BREAD.
Q     NOW IF THIS PERSON WERE A TRIAL ATTORNEY OR A JUDGE, YOU AT LEAST SHOULD HAVE USED THEM FOR YOUR FEEDER SYSTEM; RIGHT?
A     WHAT SYSTEM?
Q     WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS THE "FEEDER SYSTEM" A WHILE AGO, WHERE YOU GO TO THE PERSON EVEN IF YOU KNOW THAT HE IS GOING TO BE FAVORABLE AND GET COMMENTS FROM HIM AND THEN HE LEADS YOU TO SOMEBODY ELSE?
A     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     SO AT LEAST IF IT WERE A TRIAL ATTORNEY OR A JUDGE, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED AS PART OF THE FEEDER SYSTEM?
A     WELL, I'M NOT SAYING THAT--(PAUSE)--THEY COULD HAVE BEEN USED AS PART OF THE FEEDER SYSTEM, YES.
Q     WELL, I GUESS I'M SAYING THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED AS PART OF THE FEEDER SYSTEM?
A     I'M NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED. I AM SAYING THEY COULD HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED. I DON'T THINK THAT THE FACT THAT A PERSON WHO WAS GIVEN AS A REFERENCE WAS NOT INTERVIEWED, THAT THAT WAS A FLAW IN THE SYSTEM.
Q     MY LAST QUESTION, MR. JOHNSON, IF YOU DIDN'T USE EVERYBODY THAT THE CANDIDATE LISTED, DOESN'T IT LEAVE THE BAR OPEN SUBJECT TO CRITICISM THAT YOU WERE SELECTIVE, THAT YOU ONLY LOOKED FOR THE BAD AND DIDN'T LOOK FOR THE GOOD? - IN THE CASE OF MR. GARFINKEL, HAD YOU INTERVIEWED THE FOLKS THAT WERE GOOD, YOU MAY NOT HAVE CONCLUDED THAT HE HAD LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE?
A     NO, THE--AS I HAVE INDICATED TO YOU, AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE FOUND FROM YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOU INTERVIEW PEOPLE AND YOU WILL FIND THAT A PATTERN DEVELOPS, THE FOOTPRINTS OF ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN MADE OVER THEIR CAREERS; AND SOME HAD A SIZE 12 AND SOME HAD A SIZE 8, AND YOU WILL FIND THAT THE 8 WAS CONSISTENT MORE THERE.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SO THAT I CAN MAKE SURE THAT--I THINK REPRESENTATIVE HODGES HAS GOT ONE QUESTION BEFORE I---

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     YES, I HAD JUST WANTED TO ASK ONE QUESTION, AND THAT IS THAT I MISSED THIS PART OF SENATOR POPE'S PRESENTATION LAST WEEK; IS THE A.B.A. MODEL YOUR MODEL FOR EVALUATION WHERE THEY EVALUATE CANDIDATES AND PRESENT A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE? IS THAT SORT OF THE MODEL THAT YOU USED IN SETTING UP THIS?
A     SOMEWHAT IN--WE CONSULTED WITH THE UNITED STATES JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ABOUT IT, BUT OURS--THE CONCEPT IS THE SAME, BUT THE PROCEDURE IS DIFFERENT. THEY DON'T GO IN DEPTH LIKE WE DID. I BELIEVE OUR PROCESS IS BETTER.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: OKAY.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     MR. JOHNSON, FOR THE RECORD, THEN AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US IS THAT THE BAR WILL NOT PUBLICLY GIVE ITS REASONS FOR ITS RATINGS?
A     THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q     ALL RIGHT, AND THAT WOULD THEN BE YOUR POSITION ON EACH ONE OF THE RATINGS OF EACH ONE OF THE CANDIDATES THAT Y'ALL ARE DOING RATINGS ON?
A     WE WILL DO IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT. I ASK IF THERE IS ANY OBJECTION BY ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE; OTHERWISE, I WILL JUST ASK HIM TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE HIS REPORT ON ALL OF THEM SINCE THEY WILL NOT GIVE THEIR REASONS IN OPEN SESSION FOR THE FINDINGS AND RECEIVE THEM ON THAT BASIS, SO THAT WE WON'T HAVE TO HOLD YOU. THERE IS NO NEED FOR US TO SIT HERE AND DO THIS ON EVERY ONE OF THEM.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:

Q     I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO, BUT OUR COUNSEL ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE TRIAL EXPERIENCE, THE LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE, AND FROM READING THE INFORMATION ON MR. GARFINKEL, HE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR SOME 18 YEARS AND HE'S IN COURT AN AVERAGE OF ONCE A WEEK, AND I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE "LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE" WITH 18 YEARS AND WITH BEING IN COURT AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK.
A     I WILL BE HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. JOHNSON, SO THAT WE CAN SPEED IT UP AND GET DONE FOR YOU, AND I'M GOING TO PUT ON THE RECORD AT THIS POINT THAT Y'ALL ARE DECLINING TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY REGARDING YOUR REASONS FOR THE RATINGS, AND THAT WOULD BE YOUR POSITION ON EACH ONE OF THE REMAINING CANDIDATES; AND IF YOU WISH NOW, THEN ON THAT BASIS, YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND GIVE US THE REMAINDER OF YOUR REPORT. WE WOULD JUST, WE WOULD BE ASKING ONLY FOR THE REPORT DOWN THROUGH HAGOOD, AND THEN WE WOULD STOP AT THAT POINT SINCE THAT IS ALL THAT IS BEFORE US.
A     YOU GOT THAT REPORT LAST WEEK. MR. POPE GAVE THAT TO YOU LAST WEEK.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DID NOT RECEIVE THAT IN OPEN SESSION LAST WEEK. WE RECEIVED--IN FACT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I WOULD BE GLAD TO READ OUT THE LETTER OF THE REPORT THAT WE GOT LAST WEEK IF MR. JOHNSON DOESN'T HAVE A COPY OF IT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, BECAUSE I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE PUT--SINCE OUR POSITION IS TO DO THINGS IN PUBLIC.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, COURT OF APPEALS SEAT #2, THE HONORABLE CURTIS G. SHAW WAS FOUND WELL-QUALIFIED; COURT OF APPEALS CHIEF JUDGE, THE HONORABLE WILLIAM T. HOWELL WAS FOUND WELL-QUALIFIED; THE HONORABLE JOHN T. GARDNER WAS FOUND WELL-QUALIFIED. FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT SEAT #1, THE HONORABLE J. SETH WHIPPER WAS FOUND QUALIFIED; MRS. FRANCES SEGARS-ANDREWS WAS FOUND WELL-QUALIFIED; MR. DAVID A SODERLUND WAS FOUND WELL-QUALIFIED; AND MR. PAUL W. GARFINKEL WAS FOUND QUALIFIED. AND THAT WOULD BRING US UP TO THE COURT OF APPEALS SEAT #1, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: LET ME ASK YOU, ARE Y'ALL RELEASING ALL OF YOUR RATINGS TODAY?
A     YES.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WELL, THEN SINCE THE--IF YOUR POSITION IS GOING TO BE THE SAME, IF YOU JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD AND JUST GIVE THEM TO US NOW.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
SENATOR MOORE: I WILL LISTEN, BUT I WILL, FOR THE RECORD, OBJECT AHEAD OF TIME TO ANY EXECUTIVE SESSION TO GIVE ANY REASONS REGARDING THE RATINGS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT UNLESS THIS COMMITTEE VOTES OTHERWISE, OUR POLICY IS, AS IT WAS, THAT WE WOULD TAKE THESE IN OPEN SESSION AND THE REASONS, AND, AS I UNDERSTAND, WHEN HE GIVES HIS REPORT IT IS WITH THE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE DECLINING TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS IN OPEN SESSION REGARDING THEIR REASONS. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GIVE THE REMAINDER OF YOUR REPORT, SIR, JUST SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
A     SURE, I APPRECIATE THAT. THE ONLY REMAINING CANDIDATES ARE THE CANDIDATES FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS SEAT #1. WE FOUND THE HONORABLE CAROL CONNOR WELL-QUALIFIED, BEN A. HAGOOD, JR., ESQUIRE, QUALIFIED, THE HONORABLE WILLIAM T. HOWELL WELL-QUALIFIED, THOMAS E. HUFF NOT QUALIFIED, AND THE HONORABLE CHARLES B. SIMMONS, JR., WELL-QUALIFIED.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THAT CONCLUDES YOUR REPORT; THANK YOU FOR COMING, SIR.
MR. JOHNSON: THANK YOU. MY PLEASURE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
MR. BEATTY: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, REPRESENTATIVE.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: I WAS WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT THIS COMMITTEE COULD EVEN ENTERTAIN A REPORT FROM THE BAR IN THAT WE REQUIRE SWORN AFFIDAVITS AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE BEFORE TESTIFYING, AND THIS INFORMATION RECEIVED IS BASED ON HEARSAY. I WONDER WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN EVEN RECEIVE IT. MAYBE WE CAN, OR MAYBE WE CAN'T. I THINK WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER THAT. CANDIDATES AND WE'VE ALLOWED THEM TO EXTENSIVELY TESTIFY REGARDING THAT. I THINK IT RELATES TO THE WEIGHT THAT WE GIVE TO IT. I THINK THAT IS THE ISSUE.
MR. JOHNSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE TO OUR FIRST APPLICANT, MR. PAUL W. GARFINKEL. MR. GARFINKEL, GOOD MORNING, AND I WOULD ASK YOU, SIR, TO PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. PAUL W. GARFINKEL, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOU, SIR, HAVE A SEAT.
A     THANK YOU.
Q     I NOTE THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME UP FOR SCREENING; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, I HAVE.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     THERE IS ONE ADDITION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ON THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION NUMBER 4; I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT AS OF LAST WEEK, I AM A PROUD GRANDFATHER.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION THEN OF MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     ALL RIGHT, IF THERE IS NOT, THEN IT SHALL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Paul W. Garfinkel
Home Address:                                 Business Address:
241 Confederate Circle                 3660 W. Montague Ave.
Charleston, SC 29407                 North Charleston, SC 29418

2.     He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on August 10, 1944. He is presently 48 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married on June 16, 1991, to Susan Anne Naman. He was previously divorced from Ruth Beberman Garfinkel on October 20, 1988, in the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Charleston County, in which the wife was the moving party on the grounds of one year's continuous separation. He has three children: Jeffrey Ivan, age 22 (first year student, Loyola University of Chicago, School of Law); Allan Mark, age 21 (student, Rabbinical Ordination, Bais Yisroel Rabbinical College, Jerusalem, Israel); and Haskell Sidney, age 16 (junior in high school).

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, 1962, withdrew due to ill health; the University of South Carolina, 1963-1967, A.B. Degree; and the University of South Carolina, 1967-1970, J.D. Degree.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
1992:
SCCMDR - 2-700 - 3/19/92     Settlement Week Training
LTIC - 2-894 - 6/18/92                 Lawyers Title Underwriting Seminar
SCB - 2-675 - 5/15/92                 Domestic Practice "Hot Tips: The Experts Ride Again"
SCB - 661 - 3/13/92                     Family Court Early '92 Bench/Bar Update: Some Things to Think About
1991:
CBA - 5/24/91                                 A Discussion of the Law of Specific Performance
SCB-CLE - 5/17/91                     Domestic Practice: "The Return, Hot Tips from the Experts"
SCB-CLE - 7/17/91                     JCLE Family Law Summer '91 Update
SCB-CLE - 4/19/91                     Trial of a Civil Case from Start to Finish
1990:
CHASCB 6152 - 7/12/90             Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility
SCB-CLE 90-46 - 4/6/90             Adoptions-Private & Agency Placements
SCB-CLE - 12/7/90                     Real Estate Title Search and Title Insurance Certification Issues
SCB-CLE - 6/22/90                     Domestic Practice: Hot Tips from the Experts & Update on Taxation
1989:
CCB - 3/17/89                                 Termites & Wood Destroying Organisms
CCB - 5/26/89                                 Easements, Access & Neighborhood Roads
CCB - 6/23/89                                 Discovery
LTIC - 9/13/89                                 Underwriting Seminar
1988:
CCB/ - 11/15/88                             New Family Court Practice
Trident Tech
CCB/ - 11/29/88                             Custody and Visitation Rights
Trident Tech
CCB/ - 12/6/88                                 Dividing Marital Property in SC
Trident Tech
SC/CLE - 11/18/88                         Law of Automobile Insurance in SC

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
He was a lecturer at The Professional School of Real Estate in North Charleston. He taught prospective Real Estate Agents basic principles of real estate law.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school: Sole practice from 1970-1989 - exclusively civil practice with emphasis on family law and real estate From 1989 to present, associated (not a partnership) with 6-8 other attorneys; almost entirely family law

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -     0
State -             Average of once a week
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5%
Criminal - 0
Domestic - 95%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 5% - associate counsel
Non-jury - 95% - chief counsel
17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)     In re Debra Banis. In this 1973 case, the sole issue was whether or not the adoptive parents committed the alleged physical and sexual abuse on the child who was the subject of the litigation. He represented the child in the action before the state had the present guardian ad litem program. In this case, they had to use medical and psychiatric evaluations of the child as well as do extensive interviews with the child's teacher. The case concluded after the subject child and her brother, both of whom were removed by the Court from their home and placed in foster care, were placed back in their parents' home for a three-day trial period over Christmas. The children, both of whom felt they could not tolerate any more abuse, killed both parents.
(b)     The case of Haley v. Stratton, et al. This was a case that dealt with the issue of contested adoption by a step-parent over the natural parent. In this case, his client was able to prove that it was in a young five-year-old child's best interest to be adopted by her step-father and have her natural father's rights terminated. They had to prove extreme emotional cruelty by the natural father and that the home now being provided by the mother and step-father was the proper and best place to rear this delicate impressionable young girl. He has been privileged since the conclusion of this case to have his client and his wife become among his closest and dearest friends. It has been a rewarding experience to see this young girl grow into a mature, well-adjusted young lady.
(c)     The case of Bishop v. Bishop. This was one that dealt with divorce, custody, support and alimony. This was one of the first cases in the Charleston area to use certified public accountants to determine the father's actual worth and his income as a practicing physician. Also, they were able to qualify a very experienced pre-school teacher as an expert witness in early childhood development. His client had extremely limited resources, and they were forced to use experts from a very unconventional point of view. Their C.P.A. had just opened his office, but since then has gone on to become a leader in this state on domestic relations accounting, in large measure due to the outstanding praise given him by the trial judge in the final Order in this case.
(d)     In the case of Harris v. Estate of Gearhart. He had to deal with how to determine paternity when the alleged father had been killed in an automobile accident and had been embalmed and buried for a few months prior to the bringing of the suit. He was able to obtain a vial of the alleged father's blood from SLED. The father had been taken to a hospital after his involvement in a fatal automobile accident and the attending physician, at the request of the investigating police officer, took enough blood to perform a blood alcohol test. Through quick action after being contacted by the mother, he convinced a Family Court Judge to issue an Order ordering SLED to release the remaining blood to an independent laboratory for paternity testing. The outcome resulted in a trust fund of over $190,000 being established for the minor child, who was living with his mother in Virginia on public assistance.
(e)     In the case of Outz v. Outz. He was dealing with what constitutes a change of circumstances so as to warrant a change in a child's custody. At the time of the original divorce and custody Order, the father lost custody due to his alcohol and drug abuse as well as his inability to maintain steady employment. The mother was, at that time, a concerned, care-taking parent. In this case the father was able to prove he was completely rehabilitated from his serious abuse problems and had now established himself as the owner of a successful roofing business in the low country. The mother had all but abandoned the child who was now living with the leader of a cult-like movement in North Carolina, while the non-caring mother involved herself in the activities of this fanatical group.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         O'Shields v. O'Shields, 259 S.C. 626, 193 S.E.2d 523 (1972).
This was a child custody appeal from a decision by the Master-in-Equity giving custody to the father. They did not represent the mother at the original hearing, but did for the appeal.

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:
None

22.     Public Office: Occupational Safety and Health Administration Board -Member, representing First Congressional District, from October, 1991, to present (appointed by members of the General Assembly from the First Congressional District); State Chairman, October, 1992, to present (elected by fellow members of the Board)
24.     Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Title Insurance Agent, 1978 to present - issuing agent for title insurance under the name AccenTitle Insurance Agency (sole proprietorship) for Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation

32.     Disciplined or Subject of a Formal Complaint:
(a)     Complaint to Grievance Committee by ex-husband of client after he was sent to jail for non-support - Dismissed.
(b)     Complaint to Grievance Committee by mother-in-law of client for not informing her of son's death - Dismissed.
(c)     Complaint against all lawyers in office to Grievance Committee because former associate in office in dispute over acts performed by him soley and not in association with him or other attorneys in group - pending.

33.     His health is excellent. His last physical was November 23, 1992, by Dr. David Apple.

35.     He is nearsighted - corrected by eyeglasses to 20/20.

36.     He has had Zollinger-Ellison syndrome since 1962. It is under control with medication (zantac 300 mg. twice a day).

40.     Employment Other than Employment as a Judge by a Governmental Agency:
Same as #22. Reviewing all protests, settlement agreements and conducting hearings for all OSHA actions in First Congressional District and presiding over any statewide appeals actions in which he was not the original hearing officer. No supervisor.

43.     Expenditures for candidacy:
Stationery and postage to write members of the General Assembly in January and February, 1993. Plastic name tag - January, 1993.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Charleston County Bar Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Mediator and Special Referee, Charleston County Circuit Courts (1992-present); Brith Sholom Beth Israel Synagogue - member, 1970-present, Secretary (1973-1980), Vice President (1981-1984) and President (1985-1986); Arbitrator, American Arbitration Association (1981-present); South Carolina Bar Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law (1986-1988); South Carolina Bar Committee on Insurance (1989); Broker, South Carolina Real Estate Commission (1983-present); Agent, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (1980-present); National Board of Directors, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (1990-present); and Advisor, Parents Without Partners (1992-present)

50.     In 1980, he discovered that his secretary had stolen money from his various checking accounts. The secretary was immediately fired, and since then he has a system established to insure that it could never happen again.

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Marilyn Drayton, Banking Officer
NationsBank
P. O. Box 190011,
Charleston, SC 29419-9011
(b)     John M. Bleecker, Jr., Esquire
121 Church Street, P. O. Box 148,
Charleston, SC 29402-0148
(c)     Honorable Warren H. Jolly
Retired Judge,
The Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit
107 Gulledge Street, P. O. Box 275,

Moncks Corner, SC 29461
(d)     Robert B. Wallace, Esquire
Wallace and Tinkler
129 Broad Street, P. O. Box 388,
Charleston, South Carolina 29402-0388
(e)     William Ackerman, Esquire
Shimel, Ackerman, Theos, Spar & Robinson

122 Church Street, P. O. Drawer D,
Charleston, South Carolina 29402

Q     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE REPORTS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. RECORDS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. THAT INCLUDES THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE CHARLESTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOWED NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU. THERE IS ONE CIVIL SUIT INVOLVING A BREACH OF CONTRACT, FAILURE TO PROVIDE SERVICE, ET CETERA, WHICH WAS SETTLED AND DISMISSED IN 1981.
A     I WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT ACTION; I WANT IT NOTED FOR THE RECORD.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A     I BROUGHT THE ACTION AGAINST SOUTHERN BELL.
Q     YOUR REPORT IS THAT YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT.
A     CORRECT.
Q     AND I SEE THAT WE--OUR RECORDS INDICATE THAT NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, AND THAT WE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF NO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL, PLEASE, SIR, MR. COUICK.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. GARFINKEL, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, PLEASE, LET ME KNOW. IF YOU NEED ANY DOCUMENTS, I WILL BE GLAD TO SUPPLY YOU WITH A COPY.
A     THANK YOU.
Q     I HATE TO TREAT YOU AS THE GUINEA PIG, BUT YOU HAVE KIND OF COME RIGHT AFTER WHAT EVERYONE HAS JUST LISTENED TO, AND THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT OPPORTUNITY THE CANDIDATE HAD TO INTERFACE WITH THE BAR IN DISCUSSING THE RATINGS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE CANDIDATES. YOU ARE THE FIRST CANDIDATE THAT WE ARE ENCOUNTERING THAT DID NOT GET THE MAXIMUM RATING, WHICH IS "WELL-QUALIFIED." YOU WERE GIVEN A "QUALIFIED" RATING. I BELIEVE YOU HEARD MR. JOHNSON'S TESTIMONY THAT CANDIDATES WERE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT INTO THAT. HE WAS NOT SURE OF THE SCOPE OF THAT INPUT. I PUT TO YOU THE SPECIFIC QUESTION, WERE YOU GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE BAR'S CRITICISM THAT YOU HAD LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE? WERE YOU GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY?
A     NONE WHATSOEVER. THIS IS THE FIRST THAT I AM HEARING ABOUT WHAT ANY CRITICISM WAS.
Q     SO YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU THE REASON THEY RATED YOU "QUALIFIED" VERSUS "WELL-QUALIFIED" IS THAT YOU HAD LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE?
A     THAT'S RIGHT. THIS IS THE FIRST I HAVE HEARD OF IT, TODAY.
Q     MR. GARFINKEL, READING THROUGH YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, I COME ACROSS YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF YOUR LAW PRACTICE AS BEING A LONGSTANDING ONE. IN FACT, I FOUND A SUPREME COURT OPINION, O'SHIELDS VERSUS O'SHIELDS AND IT GOES BACK TO 1972, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN A LONGSTANDING ATTORNEY IN THE CHARLESTON COMMUNITY.
A     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     AND YOU ALSO CHARACTERIZE YOUR LAW PRACTICE AS A TRIAL ATTORNEY ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AS BEING A TRIAL PRACTITIONER, AND THAT YOU MAINLY PRACTICE IN THE AREA OF DOMESTIC COURT, WHICH WOULD BE ON POINT FOR THIS TYPE OF JUDGESHIP, FAMILY COURT JUDGESHIP. AND YOU SAY: DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, WHAT WAS THE FREQUENCY OF YOUR APPEARANCES IN THE COURT? - YOUR ANSWER TO THAT IS, THAT YOU APPEAR AN AVERAGE OF ONCE A WEEK. WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT AS A FAIRLY LIMITED TRIAL PRACTICE?
A     I WOULD NOT. I CAN'T IMAGINE PEOPLE APPEARING MORE OFTEN THAN THAT. I AM IN FAMILY COURT ON THE AVERAGE OF ABOUT ONCE A WEEK. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE PEOPLE ARE THERE MORE OFTEN, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE ABOUT AN AVERAGE.
Q     IF YOU WERE THERE MORE OFTEN, THEN YOU WOULD BE THE BAILIFF OR THE JUDGE.
A     RIGHT, I WOULD THINK SO.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION BEFORE WE GET ON THE OTHER GENERAL MATTERS.
Q     DID YOU SUPPLY THEM A LIST OF PERSONS YOU THOUGHT WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH YOUR LEGAL BACKGROUND OF TRIAL EXPERIENCE?
A     THE BAR?
Q     YES, SIR.
A     YES, I DID.
Q     WOULD THOSE FOLKS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, CHARACTERIZE YOUR TRIAL PRACTICE AS LIMITED?
A     I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, MY OTHER QUESTIONS DEAL MAINLY WITH THE ONES THAT WE WENT THROUGH LAST WEEK. THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO TAKE A BREAK IF YOU NEED TO TAKE ONE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, SIR. DO Y'ALL WANT TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK, 5 MINUTES.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THAT'LL GIVE US A CHANCE TO ANSWER THE QUORUM CALL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WE'LL TAKE A 5-MINUTE RECESS.

(RECESS FROM 11:14 A.M. UNTIL 11:28 A.M.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: WE WILL CALL BACK TO ORDER. WE HAVE A QUORUM. AND MR. COUICK.
Q     (CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK) MR. GARFINKEL, YOU MENTIONED RIGHT BEFORE WE LEFT THAT YOU HAD GIVEN A LIST OF PEOPLE TO THE BAR TO INTERVIEW. COULD YOU SUPPLY COUNSEL WITH A COPY OF THAT LIST AT YOUR CONVENIENCE SO THAT WE CONTACT THOSE FOLKS---
A     YES.
Q     ---TO SEE IF THEY WERE INTERVIEWED, CONTACTED?
A     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     MR. GARFINKEL, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN A JUDGE BEFORE AND ARE REALLY, I GUESS, THE FIRST CANDIDATE WE HAVE HAD UP THAT IS NOT A SITTING JUDGE THIS TIME AROUND, BUT I WILL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND WORK ETHIC AND THAT SORT OF THING BECAUSE YOU HAVE CERTAINLY PROBABLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE LOTS OF JUDGES AND DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE YOUR ETHIC AND YOUR TEMPERAMENT. TELL ME WHAT WOULD BE YOUR DEMEANOR AS A JUDGE.
A     MY DEMEANOR WOULD BE TO LISTEN INTENTLY TO THE ISSUES PRESENTED BEFORE ME, TRY TO REACH DECISIONS BASED ON A MATURE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW AND THE PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED. I THINK THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. BUT LET ME CLARIFY ONE THING, AS FAR AS BEING A SITTING JUDGE - I DO SERVE AS AN OSHA BOARD MEMBER, AND IN THAT CAPACITY I DO HEAR ALL CASES IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WHERE THERE ARE OSHA DISPUTES; AND, ALSO, FOR THE PAST YEAR SIT AS THE STATE CHAIRMAN AND I HEAR ALL APPEALS; AND I FUNCTION AS THE CHIEF JUDGE ON A FIVE-JUDGE PANEL ON ANY APPEALS THAT DO NOT COME FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IF I HAVE HEARD THE CASE. SO I HEAR CASES AND I ALSO SIT AS THE CHIEF JUDGE ON ALL CASES THROUGHOUT THE STATE IN THAT CAPACITY.
Q     IN THAT CAPACITY HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU TO YOUR SUPERVISING AUTHORITY---
A     NO.
Q     ---RELATIVE TO YOUR DEMEANOR OR WORK ETHIC?
A     NONE WHATSOEVER.
Q     IN THE AREA OF WORK ETHIC, IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK TO BE A JUDGE, AND IMPORTANTLY A FAMILY COURT JUDGE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITIES; JUST KIND OF CHARACTERIZE WHAT YOU ENVISION TO BE YOUR WORKDAY, WHEN IT WOULD START, WHEN IT WOULD END, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD BE DOING DURING THAT DAY.
A     MY WORKDAY, I WOULD IMAGINE, WOULD START SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 8:15 AND 8:30 AND GO UNTIL WE'RE FINISHED, BE THAT 7:00, 8:00 O'CLOCK, HOWEVER LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO FINISH THE DAY. I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT THE DAY ENDS WHEN THE COURT BREAKS DOWN. THERE IS A LOT OF WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE AFTER COURT IS ENDED; SO, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD END BEFORE AT LEAST 6:30 OR 7:00, 7:30 OR 8:00 O'CLOCK, HOWEVER LONG IT TOOK TO GET THE JOB DONE.
Q     IN TERMS OF LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP, HAVE YOU PUBLISHED ANY ARTICLES OR BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY TYPE OF C.L.E. PROGRAMS WHERE YOU HAVE OFFERED COMMENTS TO THE BAR ABOUT THE AREA OF FAMILY LAW?
A     NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT.
Q     YOU HAVE KEPT CURRENT WITH YOUR C.L.E. REQUIREMENTS?
A     OH, YES.
Q     YOUR MARTINDALE AND HUBBLE RATING, I BELIEVE, IS A B.V.; IS THAT RIGHT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     IN THE AREA OF HEALTH, YOU INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE ONE SYNDROME KNOWN AS, AND PLEASE CORRECT MY PRONUNCIATION IF IT'S INCORRECT, ZOLLINGER-ELLISON SYNDROME?
A     PRETTY GOOD.
Q     IS THAT DEBILITATING TO ANY DEGREE?
A     NO, SIR, I TAKE ONE PILL IN THE MORNING AND ONE PILL IN THE AFTERNOON, AND THAT CONTROLS IT. IT'S SORT OF LIKE AN ANTIACID; IT ABSORBS THE EXCESS ACID THAT MY SYSTEM PRODUCES.
Q     MR. GARFINKEL, IN THE AREA OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR CARDINAL RULE ON THE BENCH FOR EX---
A     I BELIEVE THAT IT OUGHT TO BE 100 PERCENT STRICTLY OUTLAWED.
Q     IF SOMEONE BRINGS YOU AN ORDER AT YOUR REQUEST, WHAT WOULD YOU ASK ABOUT THAT ORDER BEFORE YOU WOULD SIGN IT? WOULD YOU REQUIRE THAT IT HAD BEEN REVIEWED BY THE OTHER COUNSEL?
A     YES, I THINK THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THE OTHER SIDE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW ANY ORDER THAT IS SUBMITTED AT ALL.
Q     MR. GARFINKEL, IN THE AREA OF PLEDGES, HAVE YOU SOUGHT THE PLEDGE OF ANY LEGISLATOR PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS OR THE PENDENCY OF THIS SCREENING PROCESS?
A     NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q     REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLEDGE IS SOUGHT OR CONDITIONED UPON YOUR FURTHER PROGRESS UNDER SCREENING?
A     NO.
Q     HAVE YOU ASKED ANYONE TO SOLICIT OR SEEK A PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR'S VOTE PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE SCREENING PROCESS?
A     NO. I COME OUT HERE ON THE AVERAGE OF ONCE A WEEK AND INTRODUCE MYSELF TO THE LEGISLATORS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND HAVE TOLD THEM THAT I WAS A CANDIDATE, AND THAT IS AS FAR AS I HAVE GONE.
Q     HAS ANY MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASSURED YOU THAT THEY WOULD SPEARHEAD YOUR EFFORT AS A CANDIDATE FOR THIS SEAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE A LOCK ON A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VOTES OR THAT THEY CAN PRODUCE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VOTES IF YOU WERE---
A     ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q     HAVE YOU--EXCUSE ME. YOU INDICATE IN YOUR P.D.Q. QUESTION NUMBER 12--DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT AVAILABLE?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     --THAT YOU ARE OR WILL BE ENDING YOUR ASSOCIATION WITH SIX TO EIGHT OTHER ATTORNEYS WITH WHOM YOU CURRENTLY PRACTICE LAW. I TAKE IT THAT'S NOT A PARTNERSHIP; IS THAT RIGHT?
A     THAT IS CORRECT.
Q     IS THIS LIKE SHARED OFFICE SPACE?
A     THAT'S CORRECT, RIGHT. FOUR OF THE PEOPLE OWN THE BUILDING, AND WE RENT SPACE FROM THEM.
Q     WHAT WOULD BE YOUR APPROACH TO HEARING CASES FROM THESE SIX TO EIGHT ATTORNEYS IF THEY WERE TO COME BEFORE YOU?
A     WELL, I BELIEVE THERE ARE ONLY TWO OF THE OTHER SIX THAT PRACTICE IN FAMILY COURT. FOR AT LEAST THE FIRST TWO OR THREE YEARS, I WOULD COMPLETELY RECUSE MYSELF FROM HEARING ANY CASES INVOLVING THOSE; AND THEN AFTER THAT, I WOULD INFORM THE ATTORNEYS OR ANY LITIGANTS THAT APPEARED BEFORE ME THAT I HAD THIS FORMER ASSOCIATION WITH THEME PEOPLE, AND IF THEY ASKED ME TO RECUSE MYSELF, THEN I WOULD.
Q     IN TERMS OF THE OTHER FOUR TO SIX PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY PRACTICING FAMILY LAW, I TAKE IT THAT YOUR ANSWER WOULD BE THE SAME IF THEY DID---
A     THEY ABSOLUTELY ABSTAIN FROM FAMILY COURT WHATSOEVER. THEY FIND IT ABHORRENT.
Q     YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU WERE EMPLOYED BY OSHA AS A HEARING OFFICER. WOULD YOU INTEND TO END YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH OSHA IF YOU WERE TO BE ELECTED TO THIS POSITION?
A     COMPLETELY.
Q     ON YOUR P.D.Q. QUESTION NUMBER 32, YOU INDICATE THERE IS A PENDING GRIEVANCE MATTER AGAINST ALL LAWYERS IN YOUR OFFICE BECAUSE OF A FORMER ASSOCIATE IN THE OFFICE IN DISPUTE OVER ACTS PERFORMED BY HIM SOLELY AND NOT IN ASSOCIATION WITH YOU OR THE OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THE GROUP. I GUESS THIS GOES TO THE QUESTION YOU ANSWERED EARLIER, YOU ARE NOT IN A PARTNERSHIP WITH THESE OTHER ATTORNEYS. HAVE YOU EVER HELD YOURSELF OUT TO BE IN A FIRM? HAS YOUR LETTERHEAD EVER INDICATED THAT IT WAS MORE THAN JUST MR. PAUL GARFINKEL IN PRACTICE?
A     I USE A LETTERHEAD ENTITLED "REASON LAW OFFICES," AND WE DO THAT FOR THE CONVENIENCE SAKE AND THE PERSON WHO IS IN CHARGE OF LOOKING INTO THAT DID GET A RULING THAT THE WAY IT'S HANDLED IS ACCEPTABLE.
Q     "REASON" BEING THE NAME OF ONE OF THE PARTIES THERE, OR?
A     YES, SENIOR BOTH IN AGE AND LENGTH OF PRACTICE.
Q     THE DISPUTE--AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO TOO MUCH BECAUSE THIS REALLY INVOLVES, AS I TAKE IT, THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER ATTORNEY AND NOT YOU; AND I AM TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE ASSOCIATIVE ELEMENT OF IT, AS OPPOSED TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. HAS THE PERSON MAKING THE COMPLAINT BROUGHT FORTH ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT IT TRULY WAS A PARTNERSHIP AS OPPOSED TO THIS BEING A---
A     NONE WHATSOEVER. WHAT HAPPENED WAS, VERY SIMPLY, IT WAS FILED BY AN EX-CLIENT OF ONE OF THE ASSOCIATES, WHO IS NO LONGER WITH US, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE ISSUING AGENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE OVER A DISPUTED AMOUNT THAT WAS CHARGED FOR TITLE INSURANCE. AND THE OTHER ASSOCIATES OF THE OFFICE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY COMPENSATION WHATSOEVER FROM THIS FEE HE CHARGED AS TITLE ISSUING AGENT.
Q     ITEM NUMBER 43 ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU LIST THAT YOU HAVE PAID FOR STATIONERY AND POSTAGE TO WRITE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, I TAKE IT, TWO DATES, AND YOU HAVE ALSO BOUGHT A PLASTIC NAME TAG. HAVE YOU REPORTED THOSE AMOUNTS TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE IF THEY ARE OVER A CUMULATIVE $100?
A     THEY, I BELIEVE WERE, UNDER--I BELIEVE THEY WERE UNDER-- UNDER $100, NUMBER ONE; AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER--BECAUSE I HAVE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK.
Q     MY RECORDS INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE NOT FILED WITH EITHER THE HOUSE OR SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE; SO, I GUESS THAT I WOULD TAKE IT THAT THE REASON YOU GIVE FOR NOT FILING WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT THEY WERE UNDER A CUMULATIVE $100. WERE THEY, IN FACT, YOUR EXPENSES, UNDER $100?
A     YES, THEY WERE.
Q     ON P.D.Q. QUESTION NUMBER 50, WHERE IT ASKED YOU TO STATE ANY OTHER INFORMATION WHICH MAY REFLECT POSITIVELY OR ADVERSELY ON YOU, YOU STATE THAT IN 1980 YOU DISCOVERED THAT YOUR SECRETARY HAD STOLEN MONEY FROM VARIOUS CHECKING ACCOUNTS, THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY FIRED HER, AND THAT YOU SINCE HAVE ESTABLISHED, I TAKE IT TO BE, AN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WHICH--OR SOME TYPE OF CHECK PROCESSING SYSTEM THAT ESTABLISHES OR ENSURES THAT IT NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. DID ANY CLIENT LOSE ANY MONEY IN THAT?
A     NO, NONE WHATSOEVER. THERE WAS NEVER A COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST ME, EITHER PERSONALLY OR AGAINST ANY OF THE GROUP WHATSOEVER.
Q     DID IT INVOLVE YOUR TRUST ACCOUNT AT ALL?
A     YES, IT DID. I MADE THE MONIES GOOD IMMEDIATELY AND NO ONE LOST ANYTHING, EXCEPT ME.
Q     IN THAT SO FAR AS IT INVOLVED YOUR TRUST ACCOUNT, WERE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE THEN ATTAINING RULES THAT RELATE TO TRUST ACCOUNTS IN TERMS OF CONTROL MEASURES AND THAT SORT OF THING?
A     RIGHT. I CHECKED WITH THE BAR AND DID EVERYTHING I COULD TO SEE THAT EVERYTHING WAS COMPLIED WITH ACCORDING TO THE THEN EXISTING RULES. THE RULES HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN.
Q     ONCE YOU BECOME A JUDGE, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO ANOTHER STANDARD OF ETHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY THAT YOU ARE NOT CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT EARLIER WAS THE ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND THE EXCEPTION TO THAT ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS WHICH THE RULE CALLS "ORDINARY SOCIAL HOSPITALITY." I BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE LAST WEEK AND YOU PROBABLY HEARD ME DISCUSS THAT WITH SEVERAL JUDGES. TELL ME WHAT THE LIMITS ARE OF REGULAR SOCIAL HOSPITALITY TO YOU INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO THIS EXCEPTION. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE FROM AN ATTORNEY, EITHER APPEARING AT THAT TIME OR WHO REGULARLY APPEARS BEFORE YOU IN YOUR COURTROOM?
A     WELL, SINCE I HAVE ACCEPTED THE OSHA POSITION, I HAVE NOT ACCEPTED ANY GIFTS WHATSOEVER FROM ANY ATTORNEY ON THE CHANCE THAT THEY MIGHT APPEAR BEFORE ME, AND THAT IS WHAT I WOULD DO IN THAT SITUATION, I WOULD CONTINUE ON.
Q     AND, MR. GARFINKEL, I USE THE TERM "GIFT" IN A VERY GENERIC SENSE. A LOT OF FOLKS THINK A "GIFT" IS WHEN YOU WRAP SOMETHING UP IN PAPER AND PUT A BOW ON IT. I INCLUDE LUNCHES, ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS IN THAT; IS THAT YOUR DEFINITION OF "GIFT," AS WELL?
A     THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GARFINKEL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     MR. GARFINKEL, THE ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE THAT I'M GOING TO START ASKING OF EACH CANDIDATE IS: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT POLITENESS AND GOOD MANNERS ARE AN ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION IN A COURT, FOR PRESIDING IN A COURTROOM?
A     THAT IS CORRECT. I HAVE ALL TOO OFTEN SEEN LITIGANTS COME OUT OF THE COURTROOM WHERE THE JUDGE EXHIBITED EXTREMELY BAD MANNERS, VERY DISCOURTEOUS. IT'S ESPECIALLY BAD IN FAMILY COURT WHERE THE JUDGE IS JUDGE AND JURY, AND IT LEAVES A TERRIBLE TASTE IN THE MIND OF A LITIGANT THAT IS WHAT THEY SEE OF OUR SYSTEM; SO, I BELIEVE YOU NEED SOMEONE, AS MR. COUICK SAID, WITH PROPER JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO MATURELY LISTEN TO CASES AND UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I MISSED ONE QUESTION THAT I NEED TO ASK.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, GO AHEAD.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     YOU INDICATE ON AN ATTACHMENT TO YOUR P.D.Q., AND I HAD PUT IT ASIDE TO ASK YOU AND I MISLOOKED, THAT YOU HAD CLERKED FOR MR. HARVEY GOLDEN HERE IN COLUMBIA AT SOME POINT IN YOUR LAW SCHOOL CAREER; IS THAT RIGHT?
A     YES.
Q     DO YOU CONTINUE TO BE FAMILIAR WITH MR. GOLDEN, AND IS HE FAMILIAR WITH YOUR PRACTICE?
A     TO SOME EXTENT. HARVEY AND I TALK, WE WILL BUMP INTO EACH OTHER AT C.L.E. SEMINARS OR OTHER SEMINARS.
Q     WOULD HE BE FAMILIAR WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE AND YOUR TRIAL PRACTICE SUCH THAT HE COULD BE CAPABLE OF COMMENTING ON IT?
A     WELL, NO, BECAUSE I WOULD SAY IN THE PAST SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS, WE HAVE PROBABLY ONLY BUMPED INTO EACH OTHER AT C.L.E. OCCASIONALLY IF HE HAS A CASE IN THE AREA THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO TAKE--HARVEY GOES ALL OVER THE STATE--HE HAS REFERRED CASES TO ME.
Q     WOULD HE BE GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH YOUR REPUTATION?
A     I BELIEVE HE WOULD, YES.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, IN ANTICIPATION OF RECEIVING THE OTHER NAMES FROM MR. GARFINKEL, THAT MR. GOLDEN BE ADDED TO THAT LIST AND THAT THIS COMMITTEE ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO MR. GOLDEN AND THOSE OTHER NAMES LISTED BY MR. GARFINKEL, TO HAVE THEM APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND TESTIFY AS TO WHETHER MR. GARFINKEL HAS A LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE OR NOT AS DETERMINED BY THE BAR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, YOU HAVE HEARD THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL. WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE REGARDING THE ISSUING OF SUBPOENAS?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: SO MOVED.
SENATOR MOORE: SECOND.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT. I TAKE IT WITHOUT OBJECTION THEN THAT IT WILL SO BE ORDERED. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. GARFINKEL: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YOU ARE FREE TO GO, IF YOU WISH. WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE---
MR. GARFINKEL: I WILL STAY FOR AWHILE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO OUR NEXT, THE NEXT ONE IS FRANCES P. "CHARLIE" SEGARS-ANDREWS. GOOD MORNING.
MS.SEGARS-ANDREWS: GOOD MORNING.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SORRY WE HAD TO KEEP YOU SO LONG. YOU GET POLITICIANS AROUND AND THEY GET TO TALKING. IF YOU WOULD, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND FOR ME. FRANCES P. "CHARLIE" SEGARS-ANDREWS, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     PLEASE, SPEAK UP FOR THE RECORD SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN HEAR. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS YOUR FIRST SCREENING?
A     YES, IT IS.
Q     YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN BEFORE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE BEFORE?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, I HAVE.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED CLARIFICATION AT ALL THAT YOU KNOW OF?
A     ON QUESTION NUMBER 32, I HAVE STATED THAT TWO LETTERS THAT WERE SENT TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE WERE FORMAL COMPLAINTS, AND ACCORDING TO THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, I HAVE HAD NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME; SO, I AM ASSUMING THAT THOSE WERE JUST COMPLAINTS, BUT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF FORMAL COMPLAINTS.
Q     I AM ADVISED THAT UNLESS THEY ACTED ON IT, IT'S NOT A FORMAL COMPLAINT; SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOUR ANSWERS WOULD STILL BE CORRECT.
A     THANK YOU.
Q     THANK YOU THOUGH. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IT SHALL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Frances P. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews
Home Address:                                     Business Address:

1466 Winton Road                             820 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard

Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464                 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

2.     She was born in Florence, South Carolina on January 23, 1957. She is presently 36 years old.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     She was married on May 19, 1984, to Mark O. Andrews. She has two children: Kelley Dupre, age six, and James Matheson, age 2 1/2.

5.     Military Service: N/A

6.     She attended the University of South Carolina, September, 1977 through December, 1980, Bachelor of Science in Business Administration; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, September, 1981, through May, 1984, Juris Doctor.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
3/88         S. C. Bar - Guidelines in Using Mental Health Professionals in Custody (6.0 hours)

6/88         S. C. Bar - Trying the Equitable Apportionment Case (6.0 hours)

11/88     S. C. Bar - A Practical Approach to Complex Issues on Evidence in Family Court (12.0 hours)

6/89         S. C. Bar - Practical Evidence for Trial Attorneys (6.0 hours)

8/90         S. C. Bar - Divorce and Custody Mediation Training (35.50 hours)

3/91         NBI - Domestic Law in SC (5.0 hours)

7/91         S. C. Bar - JCLE Family Law Seminar (6.0 hours)

3/92         S. C. Bar - Family Court Early '92 Bench/Bar Update (6.50 Hours)

7/92         S. C. Bar - Pension and Retirement Plans - Advanced Workshop for Family Law (6.25 hours)

11/92     S. C. Bar - Family Court Bench/Bar Update (6.0 hours)

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
She lectured at the Family Court Bench/Bar Fall 1992 Update on Friday, November 13, 1992. Her topics were "The Truth About Legal Separations in South Carolina" and "Dividing Debts."

10.     Published Books or Articles:
The material she provided for her speech at the Family Court Bench/Bar Fall 1992 Update were published in the materials provided at the seminar beginning on page 81.
12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1984-1985         American Mutual Fire Insurance Company
She was employed as a litigation advisor/negotiator in the claims department.
1985-1987         Bell & McNeil, Attorneys at Law
During this period, she was an associate of this law 0firm and handled general civil litigation. She began handling primarily Family Court matters in 1986.
1987-present     She has been a sole practitioner since 1987, practicing almost exclusively in the Family Court.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -     None
State -         She has appeared frequently in the Family Court during the past five years. She has handled motions (for various types of relief), Rule to Show Cause hearings (for contempt citations), contested merits trials, adoptions and a variety of other matters in the Family Court. She would estimate, conservatively, that she appeared in Family Court at least once a week during the past five years.
Other -     As her practice has been limited almost exclusively to the Family Court during the last five years, she has made few, if any, appearances in the Circuit Court during that period. Also, she has appeared in the S. C. Court of Appeals on one occasion during the last five years.

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 1%
Criminal - 0
Domestic - 99%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 1%
Non-jury - 99%
She was usually sole counsel, but has been chief and/or associate counsel at trial with Ann M. Stirling, Peter L. Fuge, Richard C. Bell and Mark O. Andrews.

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)     Karen Michelle Bryan v. John C. Bryan, Charleston County Family Court, Case No. 89-DR-10-0083.
She represented the Defendant in this equitable division case. This case was important because there was a division of a military retirement shortly after the decision of Martin v. Martin. 296 SC 436, 373 S.E.2d 706 (Ct. App. 1988). The division of military retirement benefits was a controversial issue in the Family Court at this time.
(b)     John A. O'Brick v. Baby Girl "M," a minor under the age of 14, Dorchester County Family Court, Case No. 87-DR-18-83.
This case was the first adoption she handled under the new adoption statute passed in 1986. This statute significantly altered the manner of handling adoptions in the Family Court.
(c)     Frankie Vanderhorst v. Bernetha P. Vanderhorst, Berkeley County Family Court, Case No. 87-DR-08-312.
She represented the Plaintiff, father, in this custody suit. This matter was significant because it was her first custody trial, and her client prevailed. Mr. Vanderhorst received sole custody of his son.
(d)     Janet D. Conway v. John C. Conway, Jr., Charleston County Family Court, Case No. 91-DR-10-4668.
She represented the Defendant in a much contested Rule to Show Cause hearing on October 16, 1992, in Case Number 91-DR-10-4668. The Defendant had experienced a drastic change of financial circumstances since the Final Order had been issued some time earlier, and he was suffering under a severe financial hardship. The Defendant was found not to be in willful contempt at this rule hearing. She simultaneously filed a counterclaim in a new action, Case Number 92-DR-10-4362, asking for a decrease in the Defendant's support obligations. The Defendant was given a temporary decrease at the motion hearing. The final hearing in this matter was scheduled for March 29, 1993. This case illustrates the responsibility of the Court to modify previously established support obligations in the event that a party can demonstrate that a material change of financial circumstances has occurred. Her client prevailed at the Rule hearing and at the Motion on this issue.
(e)     Carey Leigh Marino and Vince Marino v. Scott Michael Burkett In Re: Mitchell Scott Burkett, a minor under the age of 14, Charleston County Family Court, Case No. 89-DR-10-2739.
She defended the Defendant in this termination of parental rights case. The termination of Mr. Burkett's rights was denied and visitation rights were established. She gained a great deal of satisfaction through assisting her client in re-establishing his relationship with his son.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)     Janet Arlene Eckhardt v. Richard Joseph Eckhardt, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Appeal from Berkeley County Family Court, Opinion No. 1866, Decision Date: Heard June 9, 1992 - Filed August 10, 1992.
(b)     Joan Bennett Raftery v. James J. Raftery, Appeal from Charleston County Family Court, Case No. 89-DR-10-3509. This appeal has not yet been argued.

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:
She has not handled any criminal appeals.

24.     Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
She has held no significant jobs other than those previously described. She had a variety of part-time summer jobs while in high school, undergraduate school and law school.

31.     Sued:
In 1990, her father, Harold Segars, purchased certain lots in Wild Dunes, Isle of Palms, Charleston County, South Carolina. These properties were titled in her father's name and in her name. In June, 1992, a property owner's association in Wild Dunes (Morgan Place) initiated a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment to determine whether or not certain real estate properties, including the lots owned by her father (also titled in her name), were subject to certain restrictive covenants of the Morgan Place Property Owners' Association and, thereby, subject to payment of certain assessments made by the Property Owners' Association. This lawsuit involves multiple defendants who are the owners of other lots in Morgan Place. The defendants, including her father and herself, are represented by Sinkler & Boyd, P.A., retained by the title company. The matter is pending trial in the Court of Common Pleas in Charleston County, Case No. 92-CP-10-2698. Settlement negotiations have taken place, and it is hopeful that this matter can be resolved short of trial.
Although she is a defendant in this lawsuit and title to the lots purchased by her father was originally taken in their joint names, by virtue of an agreement reached with her father, which predated the filing of the above referenced lawsuit, she has no legal or equitable interest in such real estate properties. Furthermore, her father agreed to hold her harmless and indemnify her from any debt, losses, or obligations related to the Morgan Place lots. She has no financial interest in the outcome of the above described lawsuit.

32.     Disciplined or Subject of a Formal Complaint:
She has never been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct by any court, administrative agency, bar association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group.
In 1990, Stowe Rogers a/k/a Stow Weeks filed a formal complaint against her with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. She had various complaints about her representation of her in a custody battle. She answered each allegation, and the matter was dismissed with a determination of no wrongdoing on her part.
In August of 1987, Ellen A. Pinkleton filed a formal complaint against her with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Ms. Pinkleton appeared to be confused as to every aspect of her litigation. She answered what appeared to be Ms. Pinkleton's concerns, and the matter was closed.
In June, 1992, Teresa J. Mathewson filed an application for Resolution of Disputed Fee against her. She has agreed to refund $410.00 to her prior to this filing. The matter was negotiated and ultimately settled in August, 1992. She refunded $853.00 to Ms. Mathewson, and the matter was ended.

33.     Her health is excellent. Her last physical was in February, 1993, by Dr. Roger Rowe, 913 Bowman Road, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464.

35.     She is slightly nearsighted which condition is corrected by glasses/contact lenses.

39.     She has not, to the best of her knowledge, accepted anything of value while filing for election to a judicial seat. However, she has attended various receptions and functions in Columbia during her campaign since January 12, 1993, at which food and beverage was served.

40.     Employment Other than Employment as a Judge by a Governmental Agency:
She was employed as a page for Senator Harry Chapman while in college, approximately 1978-1979. She served as a hostess at the Southern Governor's Conference in Hilton Head in 1978.

43.     Expenditures for candidacy:
Letters mailed to the members of the General Assembly between December 31, 1992, and January 2, 1993. $119.00
Notes mailed to various members of the General Assembly between January 4, 1993, and March 19, 1993. Approximately $100.00
Letters mailed to various members of the Charleston County Bar between January 4, 1993, and March 19, 1993. Approximately $100.00
Various telephone calls between January 4, 1993, and March 19, 1993. Approximately $100.00
Various persons have written letters on her behalf. The letters have been written between January 4, 1993, and March 19, 1993. She has no information with which to estimate the cost of such letters, but she would guess that it would be less than $100.00.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Charleston County Bar Association; American Trial Lawyers Association; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina

50.     Since 1987, she has practiced almost exclusively in the Family Court. She believes that she has gained a high level of competency in dealing with the issues that arise in the handling of Family Court cases. She is confident that her professional experience coupled with her personal attributes makes her well qualified for the Family Court bench.

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Elizabeth M. Palmer, Banking Center Manager
NationsBank
46 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29403
(b)     Ann M. Stirling, Esquire
145 King Street, Suite 405,
P. O. Box 102, Charleston, SC 29401
(c)     William Grey Humphrey
Full-Time Consultant, Milliken
P. O. Box 1926
Spartanburg, SC 29304-1926
(d)     Harry A. Chapman, Jr., Esquire
Chapman, Harter & Groves, P.A.
P. O. Box 10224 F.S.,
Greenville, SC 29603
(e)     Lezlie M. Barker
18 Parkins Mill Court
Greenville, SC 29607

Q     AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE REPORTS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE, INCLUDING THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE MOUNT PLEASANT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, EXCEPT WE NOTE THAT YOU MENTIONED A SUIT TO WHICH YOU WERE A PARTY, BUT THE SUIT INVOLVES MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES IN A DEVELOPMENT IN QUESTION, AND YOU REALLY HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THAT SUIT; WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     ALL RIGHT, AND YOU REPORT THAT YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT.
A     (NODDED HER HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     AND STAFF ADVISES ME THAT WE HAVE NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED REGARDING YOU, NOR HAVE WE ANY WITNESSES DESIRING TO PRESENTLY TESTIFY; SO, AT THIS POINT I WOULD ASK YOU TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MR. COUICK MIGHT HAVE.
A     THANK YOU.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, YOU ARE NOT RATED IN THE MARTINDALE HUBBLE,--AND NOT EVERYONE IS. IT'S CERTAINLY A CHOICE THAT ONE CAN MAKE OR NOT MAKE. WHY HAVE YOU CHOSEN NOT TO BE RATED?
A     FRANKLY, I HAVE NEVER LOOKED INTO IT AT ALL.
Q     AND ONE THING THAT COMES THROUGH IN MY QUESTIONS, I HOPE, IS THAT I'M JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT YOU DO HAVE AN ACTIVE TRIAL PRACTICE,---
A     (NODDED HER HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     ---THAT YOU HAVE BEEN VERY INVOLVED IN FAMILY COURT, AND I DON'T MEAN TO CHARACTERIZE YOUR PRACTICE AS NOT BEING ACTIVE; THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT. IT SEEMS APPARENT TO LOTS OF FOLKS IN THE STATEHOUSE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN UP HERE A LOT SINCE JANUARY. HOW HAVE YOU ACCOMMODATED YOUR ACTIVE TRIAL PRACTICE WITH BEING UP HERE? HOW HAVE YOU MANAGED TO HANDLE YOUR CLIENTS, OR NOT HANDLE YOUR CLIENTS, WHATEVER ALTERNATIVE MEASURES YOU'VE TAKEN IN THAT SENSE?
A     SINCE I HAVE DECIDED TO RUN FOR THIS POSITION, I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT IF I WANT TO BE A GOOD CANDIDATE AND HAVE A CHANCE TO SUCCEED THAT I HAVE TO BE UP HERE TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE SO THEY CAN GET TO KNOW ME AND LEARN OF MY QUALIFICATIONS. FRANKLY, MY PRACTICE HAS SUFFERED TREMENDOUSLY BECAUSE I HAVE HAD TO BE UP HERE. AND I HAVE TRIED TO BE UP HERE THREE DAYS A WEEK. I HAVE NOT ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT. MANY OF THE JUDGES IN CHARLESTON HAVE WORKED WITH ME AND THEY HAVE SET MY CASES ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS SO THAT I COULD BE UP HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WEEK. SINCE JANUARY, I HAVE NOT TAKEN A NEW CASE. TO START A NEW FAMILY COURT MATTER TAKES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY, AND I FELT LIKE THAT I COULD NOT DO A CLIENT PROPER SERVICE TAKING THEM ON WITHOUT BEING THERE FOR THEM THROUGH THOSE INITIAL STAGES; SO, I HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY NEW CLIENTS THIS YEAR. NOW THE CLIENTS THAT I DO HAVE, I CERTAINLY HAVE SERVICED. AND TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK AND MONDAY OF THIS WEEK, I WAS NOT UP HERE. I HAD DEPOSITIONS. AND I TRY TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THOSE MATTERS ON MONDAYS, SOMETIMES THURSDAYS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ABLE TO BE HERE, AND FRIDAYS; AND, FRANKLY, SETTING MY CASES, THE JUDGES HAVE BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE.
Q     PRIOR TO YOUR DETERMINATION TO RUN FOR THE SEAT, DESCRIBE YOUR PRACTICE. WHAT WAS A TYPICAL WORK WEEK LIKE? HOW MANY CLIENTS WOULD YOU HANDLE IN COURT; NOT IN COURT, IN TERMS OF MEDIATION OR JUST HAVING IN-OFFICE INTERVIEWS OR SETTLEMENT TALKS? TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR WORK WEEK, HOW ACTIVE YOU WERE.
A     WELL, MY AVERAGE DAY PROBABLY WOULD START ABOUT 9:00 O'CLOCK, AND I WOULD SEE CLIENTS THROUGH THE DAY ONLY REGARDING DOMESTIC ACTIONS. MY DAY WOULD END EARLIER THAN MOST LAWYERS. I WOULD PROBABLY LEAVE MY OFFICE BY 5:30 BECAUSE I HAVE CHILDREN. AFTER MY CHILDREN GO TO BED, HOWEVER, I TAKE WORK HOME AND I WORK IN THE EVENINGS. BUT IT'S--FOR THE LAST SIX TO SEVEN YEARS, MY PRACTICE HAS BEEN SOLELY IN DOMESTIC LAW. I APPEAR FREQUENTLY IN THE FAMILY COURT. MANY OF MY CASES ARE D.S.S. MATTERS. MANY OF THEM ARE SIMPLE DIVORCES, AND MANY OF THEM ARE COMPLEX EQUITABLE DIVISION MATTERS THAT TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL TIME IN DISCOVERY; SO, I HAVE HAD A GAMUT IN FAMILY COURT PRACTICE.
Q     AND MOST OF YOUR PRACTICE IS FOR PROFIT, YOU ARE--I KNOW YOU PROBABLY TAKE SOME PRO BONO CASES, BUT YOU ARE IN PRACTICE TO MAKE A PROFIT AT THE PRACTICE OF LAW?
A     CORRECT. I AM A MEMBER OF THE PRO BONO PROGRAM AND TAKE PRO BONO CASES, AND I AM APPOINTED FREQUENTLY BY THE COURTS TO REPRESENT LITIGANTS AND CHILDREN.
Q     THE SALARY FIGURE THAT YOU GIVE IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE LAST YEAR, MAINTAINING YOUR PRIVACY, WOULD YOU FEEL THAT TO BE A SALARY LEVEL THAT MOST FULL-TIME PRACTITIONERS IN THE AREA OF DOMESTIC LAW IN CHARLESTON WOULD HAVE A SALARY SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE?
A     WELL, I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER PRACTITIONERS MAKE IN THAT AREA. I BELIEVE BY CHOOSING TO PRACTICE SOLELY IN THE DOMESTIC AREA, WHERE I BILL PEOPLE ON AN HOURLY BASIS, THAT I AM LOCKING MYSELF INTO A LOWER INCOME THAN I WOULD HAVE IF I WERE WORKING ON PERSONAL INJURY CASES; SO, I BELIEVE THAT I MAKE LESS THAN MOST LAWYERS BECAUSE I PRACTICE SOLELY IN THE FAMILY COURT, AND I PRACTICE ON AN HOURLY BASIS.
Q     AND, MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, MY QUESTION IS NOT TO IMPUTE THAT YOU ARE NOT A GOOD LAWYER, NOR WHETHER YOU BILL ENOUGH. WHEN I SAW THAT SALARY LEVEL, IT SEEMED TO BE SOMEWHAT DISPARATE WITH WHAT I WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH OTHER ATTORNEYS OF YOUR YEARS OUT OF LAW SCHOOL IN THE COLUMBIA AREA, AND THAT MAY BE THAT THEY TEND TO BE CORPORATE ATTORNEYS, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS, OR WHATEVER, AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR THE BACKGROUND. THE IMPETUS OF MY QUESTION IS MAKING SURE THAT YOU DO HAVE A FULL-TIME PRACTICE OF LAW, THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MOVE FROM THAT INTO OR ONTO THE BENCH.
A     I ABSOLUTELY HAVE A FULL-TIME PRACTICE, OR I DID UNTIL JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
Q     I BELIEVE YOU PRACTICE WITH YOUR HUSBAND; IS THAT RIGHT?
A     NO, THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
Q     IS HE A FAMILY COURT ATTORNEY?
A     HE DOES DO A FAIR AMOUNT OF FAMILY COURT LAW.
Q     TELL ME, WHAT IS YOUR RULE GOING TO BE ON HIM AND OTHER ATTORNEYS THAT MAY PRACTICE WITH HIM OR BE AFFILIATED WITH HIM IN TERMS OF YOUR ELECTION TO THE BENCH? HOW WILL YOU HANDLE THAT?
A     I WOULD NOT TAKE ANY CASES THAT HE IS INVOLVED IN, NOR HIS PARTNER.
Q     HOW ABOUT JUST GENERAL DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS BEFORE YOU?
A     CERTAINLY WHEN I AM INITIALLY ON THE BENCH, IF I'M LUCKY ENOUGH TO GET THIS POSITION, I WILL HAVE MANY QUESTIONS TO ASK. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ASK MY HUSBAND. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ASK OTHER MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY.
Q     OTHER FAMILIAR COURT JUDGES?
A     CORRECT.
Q     IN THE AREA OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, YOU HEARD SENATOR MCCONNELL ASK EARLIER ABOUT JUDGES AND HOW THE JUDGES TREAT LAWYERS, AND I GUESS MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW JUDGES TREAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. WHAT WILL BE YOUR APPROACH, AND TELL ME WHY YOU WILL TAKE THAT APPROACH?
A     FRANKLY, MR. COUICK, I TRY TO LIVE MY LIFE UNDER THE GOLDEN RULE. I TREAT EVERYONE AS I WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED. I DON'T INTEND FOR THAT TO CHANGE. IF I AM ON THE BENCH, I WILL TREAT EACH LITIGANT AS I WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED IF I WERE THAT LITIGANT; AND, ALSO, EACH COUNSEL I WOULD TREAT AS I WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED IF I WERE IN THAT COURTROOM.
Q     WOULD YOU ACCEPT IT AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LAWYERS THAT APPEAR BEFORE YOU THAT IF THEY EVER FEEL LIKE THAT YOU ARE OUT OF BOUNDS IN THAT AREA THAT THEY HAVE NOT ONLY THE RIGHT, BUT THE OBLIGATION TO COME TO YOU AND ASK YOU IF EVERYTHING IS OKAY, AND JUST KIND OF REMIND YOU OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID?
A     ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD--I AM SURE WE HAVE ALL HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT JUDGES, AND I HEARD A TERM JUST LAST WEEK THAT I HAD NEVER HEARD BEFORE "ROBITIS," AND I THINK THAT IS A FEAR AND WE ALL SHOULD CONSTANTLY KEEP THAT IN MIND SO THAT WE DO NOT EVER GET TO THAT STATE IF WE ARE ON THE BENCH.
Q     TELL ME ABOUT YOUR WORK ETHIC. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE CHILDREN, AND I KNOW FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT IT'S JUST NOT MOTHERS NOW THAT HAVE PROBLEMS BALANCING DOMESTIC RESPONSIBILITY; IT'S ALSO FATHERS. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BALANCE THAT WITH THIS JUDICIAL POSITION? WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS? HOW WILL YOU ACCOMMODATE THOSE NEEDS?
A     JUST AS IT'S BEEN BALANCING WITH MY FULL-TIME PRACTICE, MY HUSBAND HAS A FULL-TIME JOB AND SO DO I, AND WE WORK TOGETHER TO ACCOMMODATE AND DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH OUR CHILDREN. OUR CHILDREN DO COME FIRST. AND I HAVE, AS MANY OF YOU WELL KNOW, BEEN UP HERE IN COLUMBIA CAMPAIGNING AND TRYING TO ALLOW YOU TO GET TO KNOW ME FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND MY HUSBAND HAS BEEN VERY CAPABLE AND ABLE TO HANDLE THE CHILDREN ONE, MAYBE TWO NIGHTS A WEEK WITHOUT ME.
Q     SO WHAT WOULD YOUR WORKDAY BE LIKE ON THE BENCH? WHEN WOULD IT START AND WHEN WOULD IT END?
A     I WOULD BE THERE WHENEVER THE CASES WERE SET FOR ME TO HEAR. MY OLDEST CHILD JUST TURNED SIX AND WILL START SCHOOL, AND I IMAGINE I WILL TAKE HER TO SCHOOL EACH DAY BY 8:00 O'CLOCK; SO, I IMAGINE I WILL BE IN THE OFFICE VERY EARLY, AND BE THERE UNTIL THINGS ARE DONE.
Q     IN THE AREA OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, TELL ME WHAT YOUR RULE IS GOING TO BE.
A     FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY TROUBLE IN CHARLESTON WITH THAT. THE JUDGES THAT HAVE NOT RULED FROM THE BENCH IN CHARLESTON HAVE SET UP CONFERENCE CALLS WHERE BOTH ATTORNEYS WERE INVOLVED IN THE RULING, AND I WOULD NOT DEVIATE FROM THAT AT ALL.
Q     HOW ABOUT IF IT WERE JUST THAT IF YOU RAN INTO A JUDGE OR IF AN ATTORNEY RAN INTO YOU AS A JUDGE AT A PARTY OR OUT ONE FRIDAY EVENING, OR WHATEVER, AND THEY JUST WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CASE, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE GOING TO BE?
A     I WOULD HAVE TO TELL THEM NOT TO.
Q     ANY PROBLEMS WITH YOUR HEALTH MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS?
A     NO.
Q     HAVE YOU WRITTEN ANYTHING IN THE AREA OF DOMESTIC PRACTICE SINCE YOUR GRADUATION FROM LAW SCHOOL THAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED OR JUST MAYBE IN THE C.L.E. PROGRAMS?
A     YES. I NOTICED IN MY APPLICATION THAT I HAD SPOKEN AT A C.L.E. LAST YEAR, AND I ALSO HANDED IN MATERIALS ON MY SUBJECT THAT WERE PUBLISHED WITH THE C.L.E. MATERIALS.
Q     WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CANNONS OF ETHICS AS THEY RELATE TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS FROM ATTORNEYS THAT EITHER ARE APPEARING BEFORE YOU AT THAT TIME OR WHO TEND TO PRACTICE BEFORE YOU OFTEN?
A     I WOULD NOT ACCEPT GIFTS FROM ATTORNEYS.
Q     DOES YOUR DEFINITION OF "GIFT" INCLUDE EVERYTHING INCLUDING A BUSINESS LUNCH?
A     YES, IT DOES.
Q     P.D.Q. NUMBER 32 THAT RELATES TO GRIEVANCE MATTERS, YOU REFERRED TO EARLIER THAT THESE THINGS WERE NOT ACTUALLY FORMAL COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE BAR GROUP OF THE PANEL, BUT YOU WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO SUPPLY THE COMMITTEE WITH SOME OF THE DETAILS. IT SEEMS THAT, JUST TO CHARACTERIZE THESE, THEY TEND TO BE DISGRUNTLED LITIGANTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE REPRESENTED. IS THERE ANY CENTRAL CORE THEME THAT RUNS THROUGH THESE OF LACK OF DILIGENCE ON YOUR PART, OR ANY TYPE OF NEGLIGENCE ON YOUR PART, OR THAT YOU TEND TO BE AN UNRESPONSIVE ATTORNEY?
A     NO, AND I WILL EXPLAIN THAT THE FIRST ONE WAS A CUSTODY BATTLE. I HAD EXPLAINED AND ADVISED MY CLIENT TO CEASE AN ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP AND NOT TO HAVE ANY PARTIES OF THE OPPOSITE SEX AROUND HER CHILDREN. I WROTE HER LETTERS ADVISING THAT, AND SHE NEVER TOOK MY ADVICE. THE SECOND ONE---
Q     I TAKE IT THAT SOMEHOW HER CONTINUED ACTIVITY IMPACTED UPON THE RULING IN THAT CASE?
A     ABSOLUTELY. THE SECOND ONE IS REALLY STILL CONFUSING TO ME. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS WOMAN QUITE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. I WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO HER. SHE SENT A LONG LETTER TO THE BOARD OF GRIEVANCES, AND THE ONLY COMPLAINT THAT I COULD REALLY GATHER FROM HER LETTER WAS THAT SHE WAS UPSET THAT I HAD GOTTEN A DIVORCE FOR HER ON THE GROUNDS OF ONE YEAR'S CONTINUOUS SEPARATION, RATHER THAN ADULTERY. I REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH HER, AND EXPLAINED THAT WE HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ADULTERY, THAT SHE COULD HIRE A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR AND WE COULD GATHER EVIDENCE AND THEN AT THAT TIME BRING AN ACTION FOR DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF ADULTERY. SHE HAD NO MONEY TO DO THAT; SO, MY ADVICE WAS TO GET THE DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF ONE YEAR'S CONTINUOUS SEPARATION. THIS WAS A DIVORCE THAT TOOK PLACE AFTER A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE FAMILY COURT PRIOR; SO, THERE WAS NO--THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO POSSIBLE FINANCIAL GAIN IF SHE HAD RECEIVED A DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF ADULTERY.
Q     THE LAST MATTER THERE REFERS TO A FEE DISAGREEMENT IN TERMS OF RESOLUTION OF A DISPUTED FEE; AND YOU NOTE THERE THAT YOU HAD AGREED TO REFUND HER $410 PRIOR TO HER FILING THAT APPLICATION FOR THE RESOLUTION. HOW DID THAT AMOUNT COME TO BE MISBILLED?
A     PARDON ME?
Q     HOW DID THAT AMOUNT OF $410 COME TO BE MISBILLED BY YOU TO HER?
A     IT WAS NOT MISBILLED. I MAKE IT CLEAR TO MY CLIENTS THAT MY RETAINERS ARE CONSIDERATION FOR ME MAKING THE CASE. I CERTAINLY BILL AGAINST THE RETAINERS, EXCEPT FOR MONEY THAT I PUT IN MY TRUST ACCOUNT TO COVER COSTS. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT, THEY ARE AWARE, IS A NON-REFUNDABLE RETAINER. WHEN THIS CASE ENDED--THE PARTIES ACTUALLY RECONCILED AND THEN MY CLIENT CAME TO ME, KNOWING THAT THE RETAINER WAS NON-REFUNDABLE AND THAT IT WAS THE CONSIDERATION FOR ME TAKING THE CASE, BUT I AGREED TO GIVE HER THE MONIES LEFT IN MY TRUST ACCOUNT. SHE THANKED ME, AND TOOK THE CHECK AND LEFT, AND THE NEXT DAY SHE RETURNED THE CHECK WITH A LETTER THAT SHE WAS FILING THIS DISPUTE. AS SOON AS I WAS CONTACTED, I TOLD THE MEMBER OF THE FEE DISPUTE BOARD JUST TO FIND OUT WHAT SHE WANTED AND I WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT.
Q     IS IT A COMMON PRACTICE IN CHARLESTON COUNTY FOR SUCH RETAINER AMOUNTS TO NOT BE REFUNDABLE?
A     YES.
Q     MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, IN YOUR QUESTION NUMBER 31, YOU DETAIL HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SUED EITHER PERSONALLY OR PROFESSIONALLY, AND YOU GO THROUGH A RATHER LENGTHY EXPLANATION OF A FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP YOU HAD WITH YOUR FATHER REGARDING SOME PROPERTY IN WILD DUNES AND THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED INTO YOUR NAME APPARENTLY AT SOME POINT, MAYBE AT THE INITIAL PURCHASE, AND MAYBE LATER TRANSFERRED OUT OF YOUR NAME. HAS THIS BEEN A FAIRLY COMMON PRACTICE, THAT THINGS BE TRANSFERRED IN AND OUT OF YOUR NAME AND THAT YOU BE A SILENT PARTNER?
A     FRANKLY, THE PROPERTY IS STILL IN MY NAME. MY FATHER AND I ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT, A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, WHERE HE HOLDS ME HARMLESS FROM ANY LOSSES AND HE HAS TOTAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY; HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOT CHANGED ANY DEEDS. THIS IS THE ONLY BUSINESS DEALINGS THAT I HAVE HAD WITH MY FATHER, AND I HAVE LEARNED A GOOD LESSON FROM IT.
Q     OKAY. ON THE QUESTION NUMBER 43 YOU DETAIL EXPENDITURES THAT YOU HAVE MADE IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO BE ELECTED TO THIS POSITION. IN REVIEWING THE RECORDS OF THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE, THEY BOTH AGREE BETWEEN THEMSELVES THAT YOU HAD $277.44 EXPENDITURES AND THEN A GENERAL REFERENCE TO 100 AND $200 IN PHONE CALLS. YOU HAVE FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE $444. I GUESS YOUR RECORDS ARE JUST BETTER FOR THE COMMITTEE THAN THEY WERE FOR THE SENATE AND HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE?
A     (PAUSE.) I THOUGHT I HAD DISCLOSED EVERYTHING ON BOTH FORMS.
Q     I THINK YOU HAVE, BUT IT'S JUST COMING UP WITH A DIFFERENT DOLLAR AMOUNT. IN THE AREA OF PLEDGES, AS INDICATED LAST WEEK, THE COMMITTEE HAS ASKED THAT I READ TWO STATEMENTS AND ASK YOU TO TAKE THIS PLEDGE: AS A CANDIDATE YOU HAVE NOT SOUGHT THE PLEDGE OF ANY LEGISLATOR PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THIS SCREENING PROCESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLEDGE SOUGHT WAS CONDITIONAL UPON YOUR FURTHER PROGRESS IN THIS ELECTION.
A     THAT'S CORRECT, I HAVE NOT.
Q     IN ADDITION, IT ASKS YOU TO PLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED ANY OTHER PERSON TO SOLICIT OR SEEK A PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR'S VOTE, EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY BE CONDITIONAL UPON YOUR FURTHER PROGRESS IN THIS ELECTION PROCESS.
A     THAT IS ALSO TRUE.
Q     ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYBODY WHO HAS SOUGHT PLEDGES ON YOUR BEHALF?
A     NO, I AM NOT.
Q     MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE THAT HAS--OR HAS ANYONE TOLD YOU THAT THEY HAD A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VOTES THAT WERE VERY LIKELY TO COME YOUR WAY IF YOU WERE SCREENED?
A     NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q     HAS ANYONE REPRESENTED TO YOU THAT OUT OF ONE BODY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER IT BE THE HOUSE OR SENATE, THAT "DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT; IF YOU GET THROUGH THE SCREENING PROCESS, I HAVE GOT 86 VOTES FOR YOU, OR 84, OR 78, OR WHATEVER, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, WE HAVE GOT IT TAKEN CARE OF"?
A     NO. DEFINITELY NO COMMENTS LIKE THAT.
Q     MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, DOES IT NOT SEEM TO YOU THAT THE PROCESS OF THE SCREENING OR THE IMPORTANCE OF SCREENING WOULD BE DEFEATED IF SOMEONE MADE SUCH A REPRESENTATION TO YOU THAT YOU HAD SUCH A COMMITMENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF REVIEWING THIS COMMITTEE GAVE YOU, AS LONG AS IT WAS QUALIFIED?
A     IT COULD.
Q     AND THAT IT WOULD NOT MATTER WHAT THIS COMMITTEE ASKED YOU OR WHAT YOUR ANSWERS WERE BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAD THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF VOTES IF YOU WERE TO BE ELECTED?
A     I THINK IT DEFINITELY COULD AFFECT IT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THAT'S THE BELL. WE ARE JUST GOING TO VOTE OFF THE BALCONY. WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. (RECESS FROM 12:05 P.M. 12:10 P.M.)
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, WE'RE BACK THE ON RECORD.
Q     (BY MR. COUICK) MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME THAT ON YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE, UNDER THE SCHEDULE OF REAL ESTATE OWNED AND THE PARTIAL INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE THAT YOU LIST JUST TWO PIECES OF REAL PROPERTY, ONE ON WINTON ROAD AND THE OTHER AT YACHT HARBOR; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     BUT, AND MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR EARLIER ANSWER, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU CONTINUE TO AT LEAST HAVE AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN WILD DUNES?
A     YOU MISUNDERSTOOD. I DO NOT HAVE AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST. MY NAME HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN FORMALLY OFF THE DEED, BUT I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST. THAT IS A CURRENT WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN MY FATHER AND MYSELF.
Q     P.D.Q. QUESTION NUMBER 28, I TAKE IT THAT THERE ARE NO --OTHER THAN TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS, THERE WERE NO OTHER VIOLATIONS, NO OTHER ARRESTS?
A     NO. NO.
Q     WERE YOU CONTACTED BY THE BAR AFTER THEY RATED YOU AS WELL-QUALIFIED?
A     AFTER THEY RATED ME AS WELL-QUALIFIED, NO. I INTERVIEWED WITH THE BAR PRIOR TO THE RATING.
Q     BUT YOU DID RECEIVE NOTICE OF YOUR RATING?
A     YES, THEY HAND-DELIVERED A LETTER TO ME IN THE LOBBY LAST WEEK.
Q     AND I TAKE IT THAT BECAUSE IT WAS "WELL-QUALIFIED," JUST, I GUESS, OUT OF COMMON SENSE, YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T ASK FOR THE REASONS FOR IT, I TAKE IT, YOU JUST ACCEPTED IT AS GOOD NEWS?
A     WELL, I ASSUMED THAT THE REASONS WERE---
Q     WELL, I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU CERTAINLY DON'T LOOK THAT SORT OF NEWS IN THE MOUTH. BUT DO YOU KNOW IF THEY INTERVIEWED ALL THE FOLKS THAT YOU LISTED ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
A     I DO NOT KNOW.
Q     COULD YOU PROVIDE MRS. SATTERWHITE WITH A LIST OF ALL THOSE FOLKS THAT YOU DID LIST ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE BAR FOR THEM TO GET IN TOUCH WITH?
A     I WOULD BE GLAD TO.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS OF MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, COULD YOU GIVE US BRIEFLY THE GIST OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE BAR INTERVIEW, THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS, AND THE LENGTH OF IT, HOW MANY QUESTIONS, AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE THERE?
A     I WAS INTERVIEWED BY THREE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE. THEY ASKED ME---
Q     WERE THEY MEMBERS--PARDON ME--ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHARLESTON BAR,---
A     NO.
Q     ---OR FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE?
A     ONE WAS A MEMBER OF THE COLUMBIA BAR, AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE RICHLAND COUNTY BAR; AND ONE FROM ANDERSON. ONLY ONE MEMBER WAS FROM THE CHARLESTON BAR.
Q     ALL RIGHT, I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING YOU; IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD.
A     THEY ASKED ME NUMEROUS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHICH JUDGES I WOULD FORMULATE MY CAREER AFTER, WHAT I THOUGHT WERE GOOD CHARACTERISTICS OF JUDGES, WHAT MY TEMPERAMENT WOULD BE, WHAT I WOULD DO IN A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS.
Q     APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG DID THE INTERVIEW LAST?
A     45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR.
Q     WERE ANY QUESTIONS RAISED REGARDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR RECUSING YOURSELF, SIMILAR TO WHAT COUNSEL HAS ASKED?
A     YES, THEY WERE.
Q     ETHICS?
A     (NODDED HER HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE:

Q     MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, YOU MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT YOU HAVE DONE SOME WORK FOR OR REPRESENTED CASES INVOLVING D.S.S.?
A     (NODDED HER HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     WAS THIS REPRESENTING CLIENTS WHO WERE DEFENDANTS IN D.S.S. CASES, OR WERE YOU ACTUALLY REPRESENTING AS AN ATTORNEY FOR D.S.S.?
A     NO, I HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY THE COURT AND AM APPOINTED REGULARLY TO REPRESENT DEFENDANTS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO HIRE A PRIVATE LAWYER, OR TO BE THE ATTORNEY FOR THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF CHILDREN THAT ARE INVOLVED IN DOMESTIC ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES, OR SEXUAL ABUSE CASES.
Q     IN THE SEXUAL ABUSE CASES, AND PHYSICAL ABUSE CASES, AND D.S.S., MANY TIMES THESE ACTIONS DO NOT GO THROUGH THE FULL JUDICIARY PROCEEDINGS. A LOT OF TIMES MANY ACTIONS ARE TAKEN MAYBE IN AN EX PARTE OR UPON A SITUATION WITH D.S.S. PRESENTING EVIDENCE TO THE COURT TO REMOVE CHILDREN, TO DO CERTAIN SITUATIONS, DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE PREDISPOSED EITHER WAY, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A TEMPERAMENT OR I GUESS A JUDICIAL ATTITUDE TO TAKE A CLOSE LOOK? IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD YOU TAKE EVERYTHING AT FACE VALUE? OR I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO GET AT IS ARE YOU PREDISPOSED FOR ANY AGENCY AND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THESE SCENARIOS, ALSO, WHO MAY NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING?
A     I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT ANY MATTER THAT I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IN D.S.S. WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE WAY I WOULD RULE FROM THE BENCH. I WOULD TAKE EACH CASE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AND RULE ONLY ON THE INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED AND HEARD WHILE ON THE BENCH. I AM NOT PREDISPOSED TO ANY VIEW.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND IT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT DOWN HERE. WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THAT THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE PLAYS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM; AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE WOULD THERE BE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU THINK COULD BE DONE THAT AREN'T BEING DONE BY THE JUDGES NOW TO IMPROVE THAT SYSTEM?
A     I DEFINITELY THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE IMPROVEMENT IN THAT AREA, THOUGH THE ONE THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS A WOMAN WHO SPOKE AT A SEMINAR, THIS SEMINAR I ALSO SPOKE AT IN LATE 1992. THIS WAS A WOMAN FROM FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA WHOSE 14-YEAR-OLD SON GOT IN TROUBLE. RATHER THAN TAKING THE CHILD OUT OF THE HOME, THEY APPOINTED A COUNSELOR TO BE ON CALL FULL-TIME FOR THIS ENTIRE FAMILY. AND THIS MOTHER TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS COUNSELOR HAD NOT ONLY HELPED HER SON THAT WAS IN TROUBLE, BUT HER OTHER TWO CHILDREN, AND HAD TAUGHT HER PARENTING SKILLS. SO I THINK COUNSELING FOR JUVENILES BEFORE THEY ARE TAKEN OUT OF THEIR HOME SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED IN MOST EVERY SITUATION, EXCEPT, OF COURSE, A REAL HARD CORE SITUATION.
Q     HAS YOUR FAMILY COURT EXPERIENCE INVOLVED REPRESENTING JUVENILES BEFORE FAMILY COURT JUDGES WHO ARE BEING BROUGHT UP TO BE SENT TO D.Y.S. FOR INCARCERATION?
A     I HAVE REPRESENTED FEWER JUVENILES THAN ANY OTHER AREA. AS A MATTER OF FACT, RIGHT NOW I ONLY REPRESENT ONE. I AM NOT AS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AREA AS THE OTHER AREAS IN FAMILY COURT; SO, I HAVE TAKEN THE TIME AND SAT THROUGH DAYS OF JUVENILE HEARINGS TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION: AT THE TIME THAT THE BAR GAVE YOU A LETTER WITH THEIR RESULTS, DID THEY GIVE YOU THE RESULTS OF ANY OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN THAT LETTER OR ORALLY?
A     NO, THEY DID NOT.
Q     AND DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU WHETHER IT WAS TO BE DISCUSSED OR NOT TO BE DISCUSSED OR ANYTHING?
A     THAT WAS NEVER MENTIONED.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I WOULD ASK YOU, MY FINAL QUESTION TO YOU WOULD BE ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, BUT COUNSEL HAS ALREADY ASKED ALL OF THAT; SO, THANK YOU.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME ASK---
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE--I MEAN SENATOR MOORE.

(LAUGHTER.)

SENATOR MOORE: YOU BLEW MY MIND. (LAUGHTER.)

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     DID THE BAR INDICATE TO YOU WHEN THEY WOULD PUBLISH THE RESULTS FOR YOUR QUALIFICATIONS OR YOUR RATING, YOU AND THE OTHER CANDIDATES? WAS THAT MENTIONED IN THE LETTER OR ORALLY---
A     NO, IT WASN'T.
Q     ---AS TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE RESULTS?
A     NO, SIR.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, PRIOR TO MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS BEING RELEASED, AND JUST TO NOTE THIS FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES THAT ARE HERE, I MADE A REQUEST AT THE LAST WEEK'S MEETING THAT THE RECORD BE CLOSED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WOULD PRINT A COPY IN THE JOURNAL, THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE MAY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT FOR ACCURACY, AND THAT THIS COMMITTEE RESERVE ITS RIGHTS TO RECALL ANY WITNESSES HEARD SO FAR AND OTHER WITNESSES TO COME BACK AND TESTIFY ABOUT THAT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WOULD BE A STANDARD THING AND RUN ACROSS THE THING; SO, JUST FOR THE RECORD AND LET IT REFLECT THAT EVEN IF WE DON'T MENTION IT IN THE FUTURE THAT IT WILL BE FOR ALL THE REST OF THE HEARINGS. WITH THAT, THANK YOU, MA'AM. SORRY WE HAD THE SLIGHT DELAY THIS MORNING.
MRS. SEGARD-ANDREWS: NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: COUNSEL INFORMS ME THAT WE PROBABLY, THAT IN ABOUT 50 MINUTES WE CAN COMPLETE THE LAST TWO FAMILY COURT; SO, IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO RUN THROUGH THOSE AND THEN BREAK, AND SEE WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: OKAY.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WOULD YOU LIKE TO TRY THAT?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: AS LONG AS THE CANDY HOLDS OUT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WE'VE GOT SOME CANDY UP HERE. THERE'S NO MORE CHOCOLATE, I CAN ASSURE YOU. ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS MR. DAVID SODERLUND. MR. SODERLUND, I'LL SAY GOOD MORNING TO YOU, AND GOOD AFTERNOON; IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DAVID A. SODERLUND, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     HAVE A SEAT, SIR, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS ON MARCH THE 24TH, 1988 WHEN YOU RAN AGAINST JUDGE WAYNE CREECH, I THINK WHO WAS--THE TWO OF Y'ALL WERE VYING FOR JUDGE---
A     THAT'S THE APPROXIMATE TIME. I AM NOT SURE OF THE EXACT DATE.
Q     ALL RIGHT; HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, I HAVE.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES THERE NEED TO HAVE ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     THE ONLY MODIFICATION IS THAT MY YOUNGEST SON IS 11 AT THIS POINT, INSTEAD OF 10; HE GAINED A YEAR FROM THE TIME I APPLIED.
Q     IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IT SHALL BE DONE AT THIS POINT THEN IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     David A. Soderlund

Home Address:                                 Business Address:

103 Queensbury Circle                 2154 North Center Street, Suite B-204

Goose Creek, SC 29445             North Charleston, SC 29418

2.     He was born in Plainfield, New Jersey on February 17, 1945. He is presently 48 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married on July 15, 1966, to Rose Marie Ricketson. He has four children: Dawn Michelle Frazier, age 24 (laboratory secretary, North Trident Regional Medical Center); Linnea Marie, age 23 (secretary, Cryogenic Rare Gas); David A., Jr., age 17 (student); and Charles Larson, age 10 (student). He also has a grandson, Preston Arthur, age 4 months.

5.     Military Service: United States Marine Corps; October, 1962 - October, 1966; CPL E-4; Service Number 1973869; Vietnam service, 1965; Honorable Discharge

6.     He attended Rutgers University, 1968-1971, B.A., and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1971-1974, J.D.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
1988
New Family Court Practice Rules, 11/15/88
Law of Automobile Insurance, 11/18/88
Dividing Marital Property, 12/6/88
1989
Understanding Alcohol & Drug Addiction, 12/1/89
General Practice Update & Hugo Related Insurance Issues, 12/8/89
1990
Practical Advice for Effective Utilization, 2/2/90
Improving Productivity in the Law Office, 12/6/90
1991
This Was The Year That Was, 12/29/91
Planning for Business Corporations, 1/3/92
1992
Domestic Law in South Carolina, 8/5/92
Family Court Bench/Bar Fall 1992 Update, 11/13/92

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
(1)     Lectured at Stratford High School - Family Law and General Information regarding the Court System
(2)     Lectured at Westview Middle School several times for Career Day

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:Associate with former firm of Smoak, Howell, Bridge & Moody, Walterboro, South Carolina; November, 1975 - December, 1975 General Practice, Domestic Law, Real Estate, Personal Injury and limited criminal; private practice as sole practitioner; January, 1976 until present

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:

Federal -     infrequent

State -             frequent; high frequency in Family Court

Other -         Municipal Courts - frequent

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 30%
Criminal - 20%
Domestic - 50%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 90%
Non-jury - 10%                         sole counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)     FAMILY COURT: He represented the wife in an action for a divorce on the grounds of adultery while demanding other marital relief. The case was tried and lasted almost two full days. The wife was basing her action on her beliefs that her husband was having a relationship with another woman. During the course of trial preparation, the client revealed that the husband had told her since the separation that he had committed adultery numerous times during the course of the 26-year marriage. During the trial, the husband admitted that he had told the wife those things, but only to get her upset or angry. The wife had no knowledge of those affairs prior to the husband's admissions to her. He also admitted he had been seeing the woman as alleged, but it was only a friendship, although he admitted buying several expensive gifts for her. The trial judge granted the divorce on adultery, despite the husband's testimony. The wife also received substantial awards regarding other marital relief.
The case is significant in that the Court held that the admitted misconduct from years earlier was sufficient to establish the grounds for divorce, as the wife had no prior knowledge and there was no cohabitation after the admissions were first made by the husband. No appeal was taken.
(b)     MUNICIPAL COURT: He was appointed to represent the defendant who was charged with assault (2 counts) and disorderly conduct under a city ordinance. The client refused to consider a plea bargain offer and a jury trial followed. The facts in this case involved the defendant coming up to his babysitter's home around 9 p.m. to pick up his son after work. The defendant was a single parent with custody of the child. When approaching the residence, he saw marked and unmarked vehicles (about 6-8) near and in front of the residence. He ran into the residence, knocking the arm of plain clothes policeman in order to get him out of the way. He picked up his son and attempted to leave and fracas ensued. His client found out later that the babysitter's boyfriend had come to the house drunk and was physically abusing the babysitter and police were called. At the trial a defense motion to sequester witnesses was granted. Testimony of five police officers differed greatly and one officer even stated that he did not believe that the defendant meant to hit him. The trial judge dismissed that assault charge on motion and the prosecutor decided to nol pros the remaining charges due to great variances in testimony. This case was significant in that it clearly demonstrated the value of sequestering witnesses.
(c)     COMMON PLEAS COURT: Ludwig v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., and Sheldon Solomon and Florence Solomon -November 18, 1985 - He was co-counsel with the late Pledger Bishop representing the Solomons personally. This case involved a suit by Ludwick against the defendants alleging wrongful termination of employment without a written contract. The suit alleged that the plaintiff was fired for obeying an Employment Security Commission subpoena. This case was tried before the Honorable John Hamilton Smith who non-suited the case after the plaintiff's evidence based on the "termination of will" doctrine. Appeal was taken and the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling 321 S.E.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1984). Certiorari was granted by the State Supreme Court and after hearing this case, the Supreme Court, on November 18, 1985, restated that termination at will remained the law, but carved out an exception that stated, "an at will employee could not be discharged in derogation of a clear mandate of public policy." This case was remanded for trial. This case was significant in that it was, to my knowledge, the first variance from strict adherence to the "termination at will" doctrine.
(d)     FAMILY COURT: He represented the father in an action filed for change of custody of the couple's four-year-old son. FACTS: The parents were married while the father was in the Navy and the mother was a British citizen. The father acquired a divorce in March of 1990 in South Carolina. The mother was given custody with the consent of the father. In late September of 1990, the father went to the mother's apartment and was told she and the child had left the state and had left a neighbor an address in Texas where she would be staying. She never told the father of her intent to leave, but there was no Order preventing her from leaving. Other people came to the father with stories of how the child was kept and the lifestyle of the wife, and he decided to file for change of custody based on all of the circumstances. The mother was served in Texas with papers for a Temporary Hearing regarding custody change and an Order to Show Cause for contempt for depriving the father of visitation rights. The wife failed to appear, and the Family Court ordered a Temporary Custody Change and ordered the wife to return to South Carolina with the child within 48 hours after service or allow the father to retrieve the child within 48 hours after service. She was served with the Temporary Order in Texas, failed to comply and left Texas and fled to England with the child. A Final Order awarding custody to the father was issued and filed on February 27, 1991. Thereafter, the assistance was applied for under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction through our State Department. Counsel was appointed in London to represent the father's interest and after several hearings and much negotiation, the English Court Ordered the wife and child to return to the United States, although they had to agree to a total new trial on the custody issue. The wife returned to the United States in early November of 1991. A two-day trial in the Family Court in August of 1992, resulted in a 24-page Order granting custody to his client. No appeal was taken. This case was significant to him in that it was his first exposure to international law and reaffirmed his belief that the legal system can and will work if someone is willing to actively and persistently pursue one's legal rights and remedies under the law.
(e)     COMMON PLEAS COURT, REMOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURT, 1989:
He represented a man who was struck from the rear as a pedestrian while walking on the side of Highway 178 in Charleston County. The driver of the vehicle who struck his client, left the scene and was never identified. His client suffered multiple injuries to his legs and was eventually given a substantial permanent impairment rating by his orthopedic surgeon. The issue in the case was insurance coverage. FACTS: His client had two vehicles insured through his carrier. Investigation revealed his coverage as listed in the following amounts:
Single limit liability - $300,000.00
Uninsured motorist - $15,000.00
The situation was unique in that the client's auto insurance premiums were paid out of his pay on a monthly basis through the client's employer. This had been the setup for several years prior to the accident. As such, the client's coverage were renewed automatically on an annual basis and no applications, etc. were required of the client. A suit was filed for damages, and the client had incurred over $30,000.00 in medical bills and almost $60,000.00 in lost wages due to his injuries. After depositions and discovery it became apparent that the insurer had not offered the client $300,000.00 in coverage for uninsured motorist coverage as required by law, and therefore, the court would most probably reform his policies to grant him those coverage. After being unable to produce any such documentation, the carrier entered into a structured settlement which gave the client a substantial lump sum recovery and an annuity payable monthly over a 20-year period. This case was significant in that it clearly demonstrated the necessity of a full and in-depth review of the available insurance coverage when representing injured parties, as just accepting his stated limits would have resulted in a recovery of not much more than his medical bills.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)     Dugger v. Dugger - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. Date of Appeal: March 7, 1978-unreported-March 16, 1978 appealed Order reversed on supersedeas.
(b)     Divens v. Divens - Appeal from Berkeley County Family Court. Date of Appeal: October, 1982-unreported-January 6, 1983 appealed Order reversed and remanded by Supreme Court.
(c)     Donnelly v. Dunning - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. South Carolina Court of Appeals, 87-MO-2, January 5, 1987.
(d)     Price v. Price - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. South Carolina Supreme Court decision 88-MO-036, Advance Sheet week ending February 13, 1988.
(e)     Shankle v. Shankle - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. Notice of Intent to Appeal was filed and Transcript ordered. Prior to receiving the transcript, the issues were settled between the parties and the Appeal was abandoned.

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:     None

23.     Unsuccessful Candidate:
Ninth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat #4 (Spring of 1988);
Interview for a Magistrate's position in Berkeley County - Spring of 1991 (not selected);
Interviewed for part-time Municipal Judge with the City of Goose Creek - January of 1993 (not selected)

30.     Tax Lien: South Carolina Tax Lien #29019, Charleston County, Filed 4/23/85, Satisfied 5/30/85, Amount $730.57

33.     His health is good. His last physical was August 13, 1992, by Dr. Flournoy C. Walker, III, 7301 Rivers Avenue, Suite 140, North Charleston, South Carolina 29418.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member of Goose Creek Lions Club since 1976, served as Secretary 1977-1978 and President, 1978-1980; elected to School Advisor Council, College Park Middle School, 1982-1983; served on the School Improvement Council, Stratford High School, 1983-present, elected Chairman for the year 1986-1987; served on the Board of Directors, Caromi Volunteer Fire Department, Ladson, South Carolina; member of St. Timothy's Lutheran Church, Goose Creek, South Carolina, where he has served a 5-year term on the Church Council

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Elijah McCants, Banking Officer

South Carolina National Bank
237 East Main Street
Moncks Corner, SC 29461
(b)     David L. DeVane, Esquire
2151 Ashley Phosphate Road
Charleston, SC 29418
(c)     George C. McCrackin
Principal, Stratford High School
Crowfield Boulevard
Goose Creek, SC 29445
(d)     The Rev. Ben Moravitz, Pastor
Saint Timothy Lutheran Church
P. O. Box 807, 200 Goose Creek Boulevard S.
Goose Creek, SC 29445
(e)     David J. Baggett, M.D.
Dorchester Family Medicine
299-A Midland Parkway
Summerville, SC 29485

Q     AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE REPORTS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE, INCLUDING THE BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THE GOOSE CREEK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF BERKELEY COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE REPORT ON YOUR HEALTH IS THAT IT'S GOOD. AND I SEE THAT WE--ACCORDING TO THE LATEST THING, WE HAVE NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED, NOR WITNESSES HAVE BEEN REQUESTED--NO WITNESSES HAVE REQUESTED TO TESTIFY. WITH THAT, I TURN YOU OVER TO MR. COUICK FOR QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. SODERLUND. IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THEY'RE ASKING FOR A ROLL CALL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. COUICK, CAN YOU HOLD FOR A MINUTE AND LET US TAKE QUICK ROLL CALL.

(RECESS FROM 12:26 P.M. UNTIL 12:30 P.M.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: OKAY, BACK ON THE RECORD.
(BY MR. COUICK) MR. SODERLUND, WE WERE JUST BEGINNING TO BEGIN. ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, ON YOUR P.D.Q., YOU INDICATE THAT YOU WERE DISCHARGED FROM THE U.S. MARINE CORPS IN 1966, OCTOBER, I BELIEVE, AND THAT YOU ENTERED RUTGERS UNIVERSITY IN 1968. JUST TO MAKE THE CHRONOLOGY COMPLETE, WHAT WERE YOU DOING BETWEEN OCTOBER 1966 AND 1968?
A     BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I WAS WAITING FOR MY WIFE TO FINISH HIGH SCHOOL AT THAT TIME.
Q     OKAY.
A     AND--(PAUSE)--ALL RIGHT; ALSO, I HAD TO--I WENT THROUGH NIGHT SCHOOL ONE YEAR BECAUSE I DID NOT DO AS WELL AS I SHOULD HAVE IN HIGH SCHOOL, AND I DID A YEAR OF NIGHT SCHOOL IN ORDER TO GET ACCEPTED TO DAY SCHOOL, AND WHEN I GOT INTO DAY SCHOOL, I WENT THROUGH IN THREE YEARS INSTEAD OF FOUR, GOING YEAR-ROUND.
Q     AT RUTGERS YOUR DEGREE WAS IN?
A     HISTORY.
Q     HISTORY. YOU ALSO INDICATE THAT YOUR MARTINDALE HUBBLE RATING IS UNKNOWN. AS I EXPLAINED TO MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A PROBLEM. IT'S JUST THAT I JUST WANTED TO ASK AND SEE IF YOU HAD AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT, IF ONE WERE APPLICABLE.
A     I DON'T SEE IT IN THE PACKAGE I HAVE, UNLESS I'M JUST MISSING IT.
Q     IT'S QUESTION 13.
MRS. SATTERWHITE: IT'S NOT ON THE ORIGINAL.
A     WHEN I--(PAUSE)---
Q     ALL RIGHT, IF YOU WOULD SUPPLY HIM--DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL P.D.Q.?
A     THAT'S FINE, I DON'T NEED IT FOR THAT, THAT'S FOR SURE. I CHECKED WITH AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN DOWNTOWN CHARLESTON TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT MY RATING WAS. I DON'T KNOW OF TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO KEEP MARTINDALE HUBBLE UP-TO-DATE IN THEIR OFFICE BECAUSE THEY'RE EXPENSIVE; AND I FOUND OUT TO MY CHAGRIN THAT MY NAME IS NOT EVEN IN THE MARTINDALE HUBBLE BOOK IN SOUTH CAROLINA. AND I CALLED MARTINDALE HUBBLE AND THEY TOLD ME THAT I WAS THE VICTIM OF THE COMPUTER ERROR AND THEY HAD ME LISTED IN NORTH CHARLESTON, NORTH CAROLINA.
Q     BIG TOWN, ISN'T IT?
A     I'M PROBABLY THE ONLY ATTORNEY AND ONLY RESIDENT THERE. BUT THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF STRAIGHTENING THAT OUT, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. WE FAXED THINGS BACK AND FORTH. SO IF I HAVE--MY UNDERSTANDING, ALSO, IS THAT WE DON'T ASK TO BE RATED. THEY DO THAT ON THEIR OWN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT. I HAVE NEVER INQUIRED AS TO HOW YOU GET RATED.
Q     YOU INDICATE THAT YOU--ON QUESTIONS 15 AND 16 THAT YOU HAVE A FAIRLY DIVERSE PRACTICE. YOU QUANTIFY THAT 50 PERCENT OF IT IS DOMESTIC WORK, 30 PERCENT IS CIVIL WORK, 20 PERCENT IS CRIMINAL. AND THEN YOU OFFER KIND OF AN INTERESTING SIDE BAR; YOU SAY THAT 90 PERCENT IS JURY AND 10 PERCENT IS NON-JURY. SEEING HOW THAT I WOULD BELIEVE THAT MOST DOMESTIC WORK WAS NON-JURY WORK AND YOU SAY THAT 50 PERCENT IS DOMESTIC, AND 30 PERCENT CIVIL, AND 20 PERCENT CRIMINAL, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THOSE NUMBERS REALLY MATCH UP?
A     LOOKING AT IT, PROBABLY NOT.
Q     HOW OFTEN ARE YOU IN THE COURTROOM, MR. SODERLUND?
A     THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY. SOME WEEKS YOU MIGHT BE IN COURT THREE OR FOUR TIMES IN THE FAMILY COURT. YOU MAY HAVE TWO WEEKS WHERE YOU ARE NOT.
Q     OVER THE COURSE OF A MONTH, HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU BE IN FAMILY COURT ON AVERAGE?
A     I WOULD SAY PROBABLY ON AVERAGE NOW, AT LEAST ONCE AND MAYBE TWICE A WEEK, POSSIBLY MORE. IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE CASELOAD AND WHAT TYPE OF HEARING YOU HAVE. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE SO MANY, YOU CAN'T GET TO ALL OF THEM.
Q     WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THOSE CASES WOULD BE MARITAL DISPUTES, AS OPPOSED TO JUVENILE JUSTICE APPEARANCES?
A     I WOULD SAY PROBABLY BETWEEN 85 PERCENT WOULD BE MARITAL. THAT'S JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD NOW. I HAVE BEEN RETAINED ON SEVERAL JUVENILE CASES REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS. IN D.S.S. MATTERS WE GET APPOINTED TO EITHER REPRESENT INDIGENT PARENTS WHO ARE ACCUSED OF SOMETHING, OR WE GET APPOINTED TO BE THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, OR WE GET APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM. THOSE ARE OBVIOUSLY PRO BONO TYPE THINGS USUALLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUNDING TO PAY YOU, EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE SAYS YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IT.
Q     ON QUESTION NUMBER 30 OF YOUR P.D.Q., YOU LIST A TAX LIEN AS BEING SATISFIED. I JUST NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD. THAT WAS DISCUSSED FULLY AT YOUR LAST HEARING.
A     RIGHT.
Q     AND I BELIEVE IT WAS AN ERROR OF SOMEONE ON THE TAX COMMISSION'S PART AND YOU WERE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT YOU HAD THE THING PENDING AGAINST YOU, I BELIEVE?
A     YES, SIR. I HAD THE PAPERWORK ON THAT AT THE LAST SCREENING, AND I COULDN'T FIND IT; BUT I BELIEVE IT'S SOMETHING WHERE WE GOT A NOTICE, WE PAID IT, AND THE LIEN WAS FILED AFTER THAT.
Q     ONE OTHER QUESTION, I HAVE--I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.
A     WE JUST DISCOVERED IT LATER ON DURING A RECORDS SEARCH.
Q     AND THAT WAS CLEARED UP?
A     YES.
Q     ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAD ABOUT TAXES THOUGH, ON YOUR LISTING OF YOUR CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT NET WORTH, UNDER CONTINGENT LIABILITIES, YOU LIST PROVISION FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, AND YOU SAY SETTLED THROUGH 12/91, 1992 IN PROCESS. I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THAT MEANT YOU JUST HADN'T FILED YOUR 1040 FOR THIS---
A     WE HAVE GOTTEN AN EXTENSION, MY ACCOUNTANT. THIS PROCESS HERE HAS SLOWED THINGS UP A LITTLE BIT IN MY OFFICE, BUT WE HAVE GOT--I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS GOT ALL THE INFORMATION HE NEEDS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
Q     BUT THE EXTENSION HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE SERVICE; YOU ARE UNDER NO PROCEEDINGS?
A     I THINK IT'S AN AUTOMATIC EXTENSION.
Q     THERE ARE NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST YOU OR ANYTHING?
A     NOT AT THIS TIME.
Q     YOU LIST NO EXPENDITURES IN YOUR CANDIDACY FOR A JUDGESHIP ON EITHER YOUR P.D.Q., NOR HAVE YOU MADE ANY FILING WITH EITHER OF THE ETHICS COMMITTEES. HAVE YOU EXPENDED ANY MONEY IN YOUR CANDIDACY, OTHER THAN TRAVEL AND LODGING?
A     MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT QUESTION WAS THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OVER $100. MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT--(PAUSE)---
Q     I THINK THE WAY THE QUESTION IS WORDED IN THE ACTUAL P.D.Q., AND IT'S QUESTION NUMBER 43, IS "ANY EXPENDITURE." THE LAW SAYS $100, BUT THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS WORDED IN THE P.D.Q. WAS "ANY EXPENDITURE."
A     TAKING THAT AS IT IS, I THINK IT EXCLUDED TRAVEL AND ROOM AND BOARD.
Q     RIGHT.
A     I SENT ONE BATCH OF LETTERS, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE 170 LETTERS WHICH WOULD BE 50-SOMETHING DOLLARS WORTH OF POSTAGE, AND SOME FOLLOW-UP LETTERS THAT WERE A LOT LESS THAN THAT.
Q     SO THE EXPENDITURES THAT YOU'VE MADE, THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNT DOES NOT EXCEED $100?
A     I DON'T THINK SO.
Q     MOVING ON TO QUESTIONS ABOUT TEMPERAMENT, WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD FOR APPROPRIATE DEMEANOR FOR A JUDGE IN THE COURTROOM, BOTH TO ATTORNEYS AND THE LITIGANTS?
A     WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE COURTEOUS. I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE ATTENTIVE. IN THE FAMILY COURT PEOPLE ARE COMING IN THERE AS LITIGANTS AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR LIVES; I THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO EVERY COURTESY YOU CAN GIVE THEM BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING DECISIONS ON THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO STAY WITH THEM FOR A LONG TIME MUCH OF THE TIME, AND I THINK YOU NEED TO BE ATTENTIVE AND YOU NEED TO LISTEN, AND YOU NEED TO GIVE THEM EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY CAN AND THE LAWYERS TO REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS AND TAKE EVERYTHING AND DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH IT UNDER THE LAWS AND UNDER THE FACTS.
Q     THE QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER OF ANOTHER CANDIDATE: IF AN ATTORNEY CAME TO YOU AND SAID, "JUDGE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE KNOWN YOU FOR AWHILE. I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBSERVE YOU. SOMETHING SEEMS TO BE WRONG. YOU ARE TAKING A RIGHT TURN IN TERMS OF YOUR BEHAVIOR." WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD ACCEPT IN THE SPIRIT THAT IT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT REALLY SITTING THERE AND SAYING, "I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT I GIVE A LUMP TO THAT FELLOW NEXT TIME"?
A     I THINK IF SOMEONE FELT THAT WAY, I WOULD JUST AS SOON HAVE IT OUT. AND, YOU KNOW, NOT "HAVE IT OUT," BUT HAVE IT OUT IN THE OPEN. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IF I GET ON THE BENCH I'M GOING TO BE PERFECT ANY MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE, AND IF SOMEBODY THINKS THAT I'M OUT OF LINE, I WOULD ACCEPT SOME CRITICISM, WHETHER IT WAS FROM A LAWYER OR ANOTHER JUDGE, OR WHATEVER. IF IT WAS CONSTRUCTIVE. OR EVEN IF IT WASN'T CONSTRUCTIVE AND IF IT NEEDED TO BE DONE, I WOULD HOPE SOMEBODY WOULD SAY SOMETHING.
Q     IN YOUR PRIVATE PRACTICE, DO YOU HAVE A REPUTATION FOR MEETING DEADLINES, WOULD YOU SAY?
A     I THINK SO.
Q     IF YOU WERE GOING ON THE BENCH, WHAT WOULD YOUR WORKDAY-- WHEN WOULD IT START, AND WHEN WOULD IT END?
A     MY EXPERIENCE FROM BEING IN THE FAMILY COURT AS MUCH AS I HAVE IS THAT MANY TIMES, A LOT OF TIMES YOU START EARLY IN THE MORNING, 8:30, 9:00 O'CLOCK AND YOU MAY BE THERE--I HAVE BEEN IN HEARINGS UNTIL 7:30, 8:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, AND THE JUDGE IS STILL THERE; SO, I THINK YOU'LL BE THERE WHEN YOU HAVE TO BE THERE, AND YOU DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO UNTIL YOU GET THE JOB ACCOMPLISHED; AND IF THAT MEANS POSSIBLY COMING IN ON WEEKENDS TO SETTLE THINGS UP SOMEHOW FROM THE PREVIOUS WEEK, IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO ATTEND TO EVERYTHING, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
Q     HAVE YOU DONE ANY LEGAL WRITING OR PARTICIPATED IN ANY C.L.E.'S AS AN INSTRUCTOR IN THE AREA OF DOMESTIC PRACTICE?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     YOUR HEALTH, YOU LIST AS GENERALLY BEING EXCELLENT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE THE COMMITTEE ON AS TO YOUR HEALTH AT THIS POINT THAT WOULD IMPACT UPON YOUR---
A     AS FAR AS I KNOW, IT'S GOOD. I'M BACK PLAYING SOFTBALL.
Q     EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, YOU HAVE HEARD THIS QUESTION ASKED TO A NUMBER OF FOLKS OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS; HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, BOTH IN THE CONTEXT OF JUST GENERAL CONVERSATION AND WITH ORDERS?
A     MY FEELING ON THAT TYPE OF THING IS SIMILAR TO THE GIFTS, AND I THINK IT GOES TO IMPROPRIETY, APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, OR WHATEVER. I JUST THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO EX PARTE CONTACTS BETWEEN LAWYERS AND JUDGES. NOW THE FAMILY COURT RULES DO PROVIDE, I THINK, IN EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ONE PARTY CAN PETITION FOR EX PARTES; THAT, I THINK, REQUIRES SOMETHING IN WRITING, NOT YOU AS AN ATTORNEY COMING TO ME AND SAYING, "THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO." IT HAS TO BE DONE FORMALLY. AND THAT'S FAIRLY RARE, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, OR IT SHOULD BE USED SPARINGLY. AND OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK NO CONTACT SHOULD BE MADE, ESPECIALLY DURING TRIALS AND LAWYERS WHO APPEAR BEFORE YOU ON A REGULAR BASIS.
Q     YOU MENTIONED GIFTS; I TAKE IT YOUR RULE WOULD BE NO GIFTS, FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SAID?
A     I WOULD RATHER ERR ON THE SIDE OF CONSERVATIVE MYSELF, AND I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE TO ACCEPTING ANYTHING.
Q     AND MY STANDARD FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT IS, DO GIFTS INCLUDE IN YOUR DEFINITION LUNCHES, ANYTHING THAT---
A     LUNCHES, WHATEVER.
Q     PLEDGES, THE TWO STATEMENTS THAT IF I CAN READ AND ASK YOU TO EITHER SAY IF YOU HAVE OR HAVEN'T: AS A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE, HAVE YOU SOUGHT THE PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THIS PROCESS, WHETHER THAT PLEDGE SOUGHT WAS CONDITIONAL OR NOT UPON YOUR BEING FURTHER SCREENED?
A     I HAVE NOT.
Q     AND, FINALLY, HAVE YOU AUTHORIZED ANY OTHER PERSON TO SEEK THOSE TYPE OF PLEDGES?
A     NO, SIR, I HAVEN'T.
Q     HAS ANYONE COME TO YOU AND SAID, "MR. SODERLUND, JUST GET THROUGH SCREENING, AS LONG AS YOU GET THAT QUALIFIED AFTER YOUR NAME, I CAN TAKE CARE OF YOU; I HAVE GOT 'X' NUMBER OF VOTES TO DELIVER FOR YOU"?
A     NO, SIR, THEY HAVE NOT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S IT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     THIS IS ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT MIKE ASKED, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY CONDITIONAL PLEDGES AT ALL?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M REFERRING TO WHEN I SAY "CONDITIONAL PLEDGES," WHICH IS "IF YOU PASS SCREENING, I WILL BE WITH YOU"?
A     I HAVE NOT EVEN DISCUSSED VOTING WITH ANYONE. I THINK IF YOU--YOU PROBABLY GOT ONE OF MY LETTERS, PROBABLY ALL OF YOU DID, AND I HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS TO SAY, "THIS IS INTRODUCTORY TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF WHAT KIND OF PERSON I AM. WHEN SCREENING IS OVER, I WILL GET BACK IN TOUCH WITH YOU FURTHER TO DISCUSS MY CANDIDACY."
Q     I HAVE GOT TWO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU. THE FIRST IS, LOOKING AT YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAD A--YOU WERE AN ASSOCIATE FOR ONE MONTH WITH A LAW FIRM BACK IN 1975, AND I CAN'T HELP BUT ASK YOU, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT TENURE.
A     THAT MIGHT BE A TYPO.
Q     IT'S NOVEMBER OF '75 TO DECEMBER OF '75; IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S WITH JUDGE HOWELL'S LAW FIRM, I PRESUME, IN WALTERBORO.
A     THAT SHOULD BE NOVEMBER OF '74. I'M SORRY.
Q     OKAY. I SAW THAT AND IT STRUCK ME AS KIND OF ODD, ANYTHING FOR THAT BRIEF OF A TENURE. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT IT, BUT YOU ARE SAYING THAT WAS OVER A ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME?
A     YES, IT WAS NOVEMBER '74 TO DECEMBER OF '75.
Q     LET ME ASK YOU, THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE GOT IS ABOUT THE SAME QUESTION I ASKED MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, AND THAT IS ABOUT THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. IF YOU WOULD JUST OFFER YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF THAT SYSTEM AND THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE IN THAT AND ANY SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE OR EFFORTS THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE TO TRY TO IMPROVE THAT?
A     WELL, I THINK ONE PROBLEM WITH THE JUVENILE SYSTEM IS THAT FACILITIES ARE NOT READILY AVAILABLE POSSIBLY FOR SEVERE OFFENDERS. I THINK IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN AVOID INCARCERATION AND HANDLE IT THROUGH SOME TYPE OF COUNSELING OR FAMILY COUNSELING, WHATEVER, AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH SAFETY FACTORS IF YOU HAVE AN EXTREMELY VIOLENT JUVENILE. I THINK ALL MEANS SHOULD PROBABLY BE TAKEN TO TRY TO KEEP THAT FAMILY INTACT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN IF YOU HAVE A JUVENILE OFFENDER; AND KEEPING THE CHILD AT HOME, IF POSSIBLE, WITH SOME TYPE OF REGULATION SHOULD BE DONE, COUNSELING IF IT APPEARS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE--IF YOU KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE WHEN YOU START; SO, I THINK THOSE TYPE OF ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION.
SENATOR MOORE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, SENATOR.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MR. SODERLUND, YOU RECALL THE INTERVIEW YOU HAD WITH THE BAR, I'M SURE?
A     YES.
Q     HOW MANY MEMBERS INTERVIEWED YOU?
A     TWO.
Q     TWO?
A     YES.
Q     DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY RESIDED OR WHAT BAR THEY WERE MEMBERS OF?
A     ONE, I BELIEVE, IS RICHLAND COUNTY, AND THE OTHER PARTY PRACTICED IN ROCK HILL. I'M NOT SURE.
Q     AND WOULD YOU TELL ME APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG THE INTERVIEW LASTED?
A     PROBABLY BETWEEN HALF AN HOUR AND 45 MINUTES, PROBABLY CLOSER TO 45 MINUTES.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR, WERE YOU OR WHEN WERE YOU NOTIFIED OF YOUR QUALIFICATIONS RATING?
A     I CALLED AROUND 1:30 LAST WEDNESDAY, I BELIEVE, AND THEY WERE LOOKING, TRYING TO FIND US, AND I SAID, "I WILL MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU," AND I DROVE OVER TO THE BAR AND PICKED IT UP. IT WAS IN A CLOSED ENVELOPE WITH MY NAME ON IT.
Q     WERE YOU GIVEN ANY INDICATION WHETHER THE RATING WOULD BE PUBLISHED?
A     I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, LOOKING AT THE RULES, THAT THEY HAD SET FORTH THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR, AND THEN WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, AND THEN IT WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC.
Q     TO WHICH SCREENING COMMITTEE?
A     TO THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE.
Q     THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED UNTIL THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE---
A     UNTIL AFTER IT WAS GIVEN TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. I CAN'T--(PAUSE)---
Q     BUT YOU WERE NOT TOLD, YOU WERE NOT TOLD THAT? YOU WERE JUST READING THAT? WERE YOU TOLD THAT ORALLY?
A     I THINK THAT IS IN THE RULES THAT THEY GENERATE, THAT THEY WOULD PRESENT IT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR, AND THEN THEY WOULD PRESENT IT TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE; AND ONCE IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, ACCORDING TO THE RULES.
Q     YOUR CORRESPONDENCE FROM THEM DID NOT MENTION WHEN IT WOULD BE PUBLISHED?
A     I DON'T THINK SO. (PAUSE, VIEWING DOCUMENT.) NO, SIR, IT DOES NOT.
Q     AND YOU WERE NOT TOLD ORALLY WHEN IT WOULD BE PUBLISHED?
A     NO. I ASKED IF--SEEING THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE MADE PUBLIC, IF I COULD MAKE IT PUBLIC NOW THAT I HAD RECEIVED IT, AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE, THIS COMMITTEE, THAT AFTERNOON, ALSO. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WASN'T DONE OR WHATEVER. AND I WAS TOLD THAT WAS UP TO ME, THAT I COULD REVEAL MINE. SINCE THEN, I FOUND OUT AT THE LAST SCREENING SESSION THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF AN AGREEMENT NOT TO REVEAL IT, AND I THINK I TOLD SENATOR MCCONNELL AND COUNSEL THAT I HAD TOLD SIX OR SEVEN PEOPLE AND THAT I WOULD CEASE AND DESIST FROM DOING THAT, AND I HAVE NOT TOLD ANYONE SINCE THEN.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     LET ME ASK YOU, AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE GIVEN YOUR RATING, WERE YOU GIVEN ANY INFORMATION REGARDING ANY OTHER CANDIDATE'S RATING?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     SINCE YOU RECEIVED YOUR RATING, HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN ANY INFORMATION REGARDING ANY OTHER CANDIDATES' RATINGS?
A     ONLY WHAT WAS ANNOUNCED THIS MORNING HERE.
Q     THE QUESTIONS ON JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, GO BACK TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT A GOOD TEMPERAMENT, GOOD MANNERS AND POLITENESS IN THE COURTROOM ARE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR A JUDGE?
A     IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A TRICK QUESTION; I THINK THAT IS A GOOD DEFINITION. YES, ABSOLUTELY, I WILL AGREE WITH THAT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     I HAD FAILED TO ASK MR. SODERLUND TO PROVIDE US WITH A LIST OF THE NAMES THAT HE HAD GIVEN TO THE BAR AS REFERENCES, THE FOUR OR FIVE NAMES, IF WE COULD HAVE THOSE?
A     MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY HAD COPIES OF OUR, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, QUESTIONNAIRE.
Q     P.D.Q.
A     THAT WE HAD AUTHORIZED Y'ALL TO GIVE THAT TO THEM.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THEY DID NOT HAVE COPIES OF THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE. THEY HAD SOME SUMMARY INFORMATION.
Q     (BY MR. COUICK) WERE THOSE THE NAMES THAT YOU HAD GIVEN TO THEM AS YOUR REFERENCES?
A     THEY WANTED FIVE ADDITIONAL NAMES, OTHER THAN THOSE.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A     I THINK I GAVE THEM SEVEN.
Q     IF I COULD HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL NAMES AND THEIR PHONE NUMBERS?
A     OKAY.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WE APPRECIATE IT.
MR. SODERLUND: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THE NEXT ONE IS JACKSON SETH WHIPPER. I SHOULD SAY GOOD AFTERNOON TO YOU, TOO. I'M SORRY FOR THE--HOLD ON FOR A SECOND WHILE THE COURT REPORTER CHANGES THE PAPER. (PAUSE.)
THE REPORTER: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. JACKSON SETH WHIPPER, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOU. THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME TO BE SCREENED, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q     IS IT CORRECT OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     THERE ARE SOME MISTAKES, OVERSIGHTS HERE: QUESTION 14, I THINK I RESPONDED TO THAT QUESTION 14, 15, AND 16--LET'S SEE, YES, QUESTION 14, 15, 16, 17, AND 18, AND 19, I RESPONDED TO WITH A FIVE-YEAR RESPONSE. THAT MAY NOT BE TERRIBLY RELEVANT, BUT I THINK THERE WAS ONLY ONE QUESTION THAT ASKED INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAST FIVE YEARS; AND, SO, I COMPLETED THAT WITH A FIVE-YEAR RESPONSE INSTEAD OF THE RESPONSE THAT HAD BEEN CALLED FOR. (MRS. SATTERWHITE CONFERRED WITH SENATOR MCCONNELL OUT OF HEARING.)
Q     STAFF TELLS ME THEY UNDERSTAND, SIR.
A     ALL RIGHT, SIR. AND LET'S SEE. (PAUSE, VIEWING DOCUMENT.) THERE WAS ONE ADDITION THAT HAD TO DO WITH AWARDS AND PRIZES, AND I DID INCLUDE AT A LATER DATE WHEN I RECOGNIZED THAT MY FIRST SUBMISSION, I LEFT THAT OUT. THAT'S IT.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR. WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR, I DON'T.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IF SO, IT SHALL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN OUR TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Jackson Seth Whipper
Home Address:                                         Business Address:
1820 Sanders Avenue                             2144 Melbourne Avenue
North Charleston, SC 29406             North Charleston, SC 29405

2.     He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on June 27, 1949. He is presently 43 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married on July 18, 1984, to Carrie Ophelia Fulse. He has two children: Jasiri L. K., age 8, and Subira N. K., age 7.

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended Claremont Men's College, 9/68 - 6/69, financial shortages; the University of South Carolina, 9/69 - 8/72, BA Degree; the University of South Carolina, 8/74 - 6/75, academic reasons; and North Carolina Central University School of Law, 8/81 - 6/84, JD.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
For the past five years, he has often earned more than the required hours for CLE and JCLE standards.

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
Department of Youth Services: Legal Related Education/Street Law, 1984 and 1985
Trident Technical College: Legal Systems in South Carolina, 1986
12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1984-1986             Civil Law: Legal counsel and litigation; single client representation - bankruptcies, consumer issues, domestic issues, administrative appeals
1986 to present     Summary Court: Trial Bench: jury and bench trials: civil and criminal, (criminal prelandlord-tenant) (including injunctions), consumer, claim and delivery, liminary and personal injury, criminal domestic violence, miscellaneous crimes, bond hearings) motor vehicle violations, arrest and search warrants

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -
State -
Other -                             DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, HE SERVED AS A FULL-TIME JUDGE.

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil -
Criminal -
Domestic -                 DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, HE SERVED AS A FULL-TIME JUDGE.

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury -
Non-jury -                     DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, HE SERVED AS A FULL-TIME JUDGE.

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:                 DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, HE SERVED AS A FULL-TIME JUDGE.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:     DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, HE SERVED AS A FULL-TIME JUDGE.

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:     DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, HE SERVED AS A FULL-TIME JUDGE.

20.     Judicial Office:
He is presently a full-time judge in the Summary/Magistrate Court.
June, 1986 to present - Summary/Magistrate Court: appointed; civil and criminal cases; $2,500.00 civil jurisdiction; criminal jurisdiction $200.00 maximum fine or 30 days maximum confinement, except where statutorily increased.

21.     Five (5) of the most significant orders or opinions:
(a)     Johnson and Johnson v. Owens, 92-SC-87-512. This case presented issues on permissive claims, necessary and real parties in interest, unfair trade practices, and legally allowable claims for damages. This order was significant because the court applied the rule in Rimer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. to allow a claim for lost earnings where plaintiff's loss was incurred as a result of his appearances in court.
(b)     Louise Jones v. Eli Horn, 90-MC-23. This case presented issues on the landlord's and tenant's obligation to maintain the dwelling unit. The court found both parties in violation of the S. C. Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and enjoined their behavior and directed action by both parties to remedy the defects. This ruling was significant in that the court issued rulings on the diminution of market value of the unit and ordered the landlord to make a minimal effort to perform routine exterminations.
(c)     Fairwind/Oakfield v. Bennett, 88-MC-2756. This case presented issues on "good cause" to terminate tenant's lease where tenant was a resident of a government subsidized apartment complex. The court ruled that possession of the unit be returned to the landlord. In this case, the application of the common law and state statutory law must be measured by federal regulations. In this instance, tenant had claimed a family larger than her's in fact, failed to report her employment, and improperly accepted a utility allowance. The court found these acts to be violative of the program and a breach of the lease.
(d)     James D. Farmer v. Laurence Lipe, 88-MC-515. In this case, defendant, after being awarded damages by a jury, moved for a new trial additur, and attorney's fees. Defendant, in his motion for a new trial, alleged jury tampering, capriciousness by the jury, and procedural due process violations. The court's considerations covered the standard of proof in a civil trial, the requirement for timely objections to evidence and juror impanelment, and the substantive law on awarding attorney's fees. The court allowed reasonable attorney's fees, denied the motion for a new trial, and granted additur to conform the damages to particular liquidated amounts admitted into evidence and allowable as a matter of law.
(e)     Cox Residential v. Beatrice Snipes, 89-MC-3068. This case presented the issue of constructive eviction. This was a Hurricane Hugo dispute. Defendant-tenant had withheld rent to urge landlord to complete repairs. The court made findings on the percentage of loss of use at the unit and found a diminution of fair market value commensurate to that percentage of loss use. Tenant was not constructively evicted from the unit but from a material portion of the unit. Since the matter arose from a bona fide controversy, the issue of wilful failure to perform on the part of both parties was dismissed.

24.     Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
He performs nuptial services and has been doing so since 1987.

27.     He has no business interest that would constitute a conflict of interest relative to the position he seeks. To resolve any potential conflict of interest, he would address the issue as required by the canons of judicial ethics.

28.     Arrested or Charged:
1976         Washington, DC     Carrying Dangerous Weapon - Imposition of sentence
Superior Court suspended. Six months unsupervised probation
1970         Columbia, SC         Unlawful Weapon, Disorderly Conduct -$125.00 fine Municipal Court

30.     Tax Lien or Other Collection Procedure: He was put in default on a student loan in 1979. He continued to make payments and retired the debt in 1985, after completing his graduate studies.

32.     Disciplined: He has never been disciplined or cited by any court, administrative agency, bar association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group. He has had complaints filed with the Judicial Standards Commission, and each has been dismissed with no further action needed after his response.

33.     His health is good. His last physicals were in 1992 by Dr. Fletcher C. Derrick, Jr., 216 Calhoun Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29403 and Dr. Courtney Fisher, 305 Ashley Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29403.

43.     Expenditures for candidacy:
He has spent $135.00 for stationary and address list preparation.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Black Lawyers Association; Charleston County Bar Association; South Carolina Summary Court Judges Association; and Charleston County Magistrates' Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
St. Matthew Baptist Church, Trustee; Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Board of Directors; Selah, Inc., Board of Directors; Liberty Hill Improvement Council; Citizen Patrol Against Drugs, General Counsel; NAACP, North Charleston Branch, Parliamentarian; National Federation of the Blind, Associate; Project Succeed, Mentor; University of South Carolina Alumni Association; North Carolina Central University School of Law Alumni Association; Herbert Lehman Scholarship, 1974; American Jurisprudence Award: Criminal Law, 1982; Martin Luther King, Jr. Fellowship, 1983; and Reginald Heber Smith Fellowship, 1984

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Rosalind Riley

South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 700
Charleston, SC 29402
(b)     Mendel Davis, Esquire
8310 Rivers Avenue
North Charleston, SC 29418
(c)     Robert L. Gailliard, Esquire
61 Morris Street
Charleston, SC 29403
(d)     Rev. Willie E. Givens, Jr.
82 Brisbane Drive
Charleston, SC 29407
(e)     Jerry Gambrell, CPA
174 Meeting Street
Charleston, SC 29402

Q     AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE REPORTS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE; THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, ALSO. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR REPORT ON YOUR HEALTH IS THAT IT'S GOOD.
A     IT'S GOOD.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR. AND NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE STAFF, AND I AM INFORMED THAT NO WITNESSES ARE PRESENT TO TESTIFY. AT THIS POINT, IF YOU WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF MR. COUICK, PLEASE.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. WHIPPER, GOOD AFTERNOON.
A     GOOD AFTERNOON.
Q     IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, LET ME KNOW, OR IF YOU NEED ANYTHING. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE IN FRONT OF YOU?
A     I DO HAVE A COPY OF THE SUMMARY.
Q     IF WE COULD SUPPLY HIM WITH A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL; THERE WILL BE SOME QUESTIONS THAT I WILL ASK YOU OFF THAT YOU MAY NEED FOR REFERENCE. (A DOCUMENT WAS HANDED TO MR. WHIPPER.)
Q     MR. WHIPPER, AS I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL FOLKS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU ABOUT MARTINDALE HUBBLE, YOU ARE NOT LISTED IN MARTINDALE HUBBLE EITHER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU BEING A JUDGE FOR FIVE YEARS.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     BUT PRIOR TO YOU BECOMING A JUDGE, WERE YOU LISTED IN MARTINDALE HUBBLE?
A     I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS, COUNSEL. AS I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE A DISCRETIONARY MOVE, I DIDN'T MAKE THAT MOVE.
Q     YOU INDICATE ON YOUR P.D. Q. NUMBER 24, QUESTION NUMBER 24.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     THAT YOU PERFORM NUPTIAL SERVICES FROM TIME TO TIME---
A     YES, SIR.
Q     ---I GUESS IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A SUMMARY COURT JUDGE?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     DO YOU CHARGE FOR THOSE SERVICES?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     ARE THOSE CHARGES MONEY THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO YOU, OR TO THE COUNTY, OR?
A     THEY DO GO TO ME.
Q     ARE THESE PERFORMED OUTSIDE YOUR GENERAL OFFICE HOURS?
A     YES, SIR. GENERALLY, YES, THEY ARE. THEY'RE EITHER DURING THE LUNCH PERIOD OR AFTER THE WORKDAY.
Q     WHERE WOULD THEY GENERALLY BE PERFORMED?
A     AT THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE PERFORMED OFF-SITE.
Q     YOU LIST VERY FORTHRIGHTLY IN YOUR P.D. QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER 28, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ON THE NEXT PAGE.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     THAT YOU WERE CHARGED IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WITH CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON IN 1976, AND THERE WAS AN IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE WHICH WAS SUSPENDED, AND YOU WERE GIVEN SIX MONTHS UNSUPERVISED PROBATION.
A     YES.
Q     COULD YOU, PLEASE, TELL THE COMMITTEE THE SPECIFICS OF THAT INCIDENT?
A     THIS RESULTED REALLY FROM A WEAPON BEING IN MY AUTOMOBILE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED AFTER A TRAFFIC VIOLATION AND PARKING VIOLATIONS; THE WEAPON WAS THERE, AND, OF COURSE, I ACKNOWLEDGED MY OWNERSHIP OF IT, NOT BEING AWARE--AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE VEHICLE WAS LICENSED IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND NOT BEING AWARE THAT THE RULES ARE STRICT IN WASHINGTON, D.C., SO I TOOK CARE OF IT THAT WAY.
Q     IN 1970 YOU WERE CHARGED IN COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL COURT WITH POSSESSION OF AN UNLAWFUL WEAPON, I TAKE IT, AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND A $120 FINE WAS IMPOSED. WOULD YOU TELL THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT THAT?
A     AGAIN, THESE CHARGES ARE EXACTLY AS THEY ARE STATED HERE. THE WEAPON WAS UNLAWFULLY POSSESSED ON MY PERSON. IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY ASSAULT, OR ANY THREATS, OR ANY KIND OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
Q     COULD YOU TELL ME ABOUT--I UNDERSTAND THE FIRST OFFENSE; YOU GAVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE CAR WAS JUST TAKEN AND THEY FOUND THE WEAPON IN YOUR CAR.
A     SURE.
Q     I'M NOT QUITE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE 1970 INCIDENT IN THAT YOU WERE CHARGED WITH DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND POSSESSION OF AN UNLAWFUL WEAPON WHICH WAS ON YOUR PERSON. IN WHAT ORDER DID THOSE OFFENSES OCCUR? DID THEY STOP YOU FOR AN UNLAWFUL WEAPON, AND THEN YOU HAD DISORDERLY CONDUCT AS TO A POLICE OFFICER? OR DID THEY COME OUT ON A REPORT OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND THEN FOUND A WEAPON? WHAT WAS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS?
A     IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION--LET ME SAY THAT THESE CONVICTIONS RESULTED BECAUSE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SPLIT THE CHARGES WHEN THEY WERE TRIED.
Q     WHAT HAPPENED, MR. WHIPPER?
A     WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THERE WAS NO DISORDERLY CONDUCT. THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT. MYSELF AND ANOTHER--AND MY ROOMMATE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WERE SHOPPING AT BELK'S AND THERE WAS THIS DISAGREEMENT ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO MOVE ABOUT THE STORE AND SHOP. LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS CALLED. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT THIS THING WAS STILL IN MY POCKET. IT WAS THERE. WE WERE ARRESTED FOR THE DISORDERLY CONDUCT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS AFTER WE GOT TO THE STATION HOUSE THAT THIS WEAPON WAS FOUND IN MY POCKET, AND I WAS CHARGED.
Q     THERE WAS NO USE OF THE WEAPON DURING WHAT WAS ALLEGED TO BE DISORDERLY CONDUCT?
A     IT WAS NOT INVOLVED AT ALL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'M SURE.
Q     YOU INDICATE THAT YOU WERE--YOU LEFT CLAREMONT MEN'S COLLEGE IN JUNE OF 1969?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I ASK YOU ABOUT THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE OF YOUR UNIQUE WORDING OF WHAT I THINK PROBABLY IS ALMOST A UNIVERSAL SITUATION WITH COLLEGE STUDENTS, AND THAT IS THE LACK OF MONEY; BUT YOU CALLED IT "FINANCIAL SHORTAGES." I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS YOUR FINANCIAL SHORTAGE, AND NOT ANY CLAREMONT MEN'S COLLEGE FINANCIAL SHORTAGE THAT YOU HAD CAUSED?
A     IT WAS MY SHORTAGE.
Q     OKAY.
A     IN OTHER WORDS, I COULD NOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE.
Q     WELL, I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT CORRECTLY. YOU LEFT U.S.C. IN 1975 FOR ACADEMIC REASONS. AT THAT TIME WERE YOU ENROLLED IN LAW SCHOOL OR UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL?
A     I WAS AT THE LAW SCHOOL.
Q     AND YOU WERE OUT OF THE LAW SCHOOL FROM THAT PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL YOU WENT TO N.C. CENTRAL LAW SCHOOL,---
A     YES, SIR.
Q     ---IS THAT CORRECT?
A     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q     WHEN WERE YOU LATER ACCEPTED INTO NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL?
A     I WAS ACCEPTED IN NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL AUGUST OF '91--'81. I'M SORRY, THE FALL OF '81.
Q     AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, HOW MANY SEMESTERS DID YOU COMPLETE?
A     TWO.
Q     TWO SEMESTERS; SO, YOU COMPLETED YOUR FIRST YEAR AT CAROLINA?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     AND YOU TOOK THAT CORE CURRICULUM OF CLASSES THAT ALL FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS TAKE AT THAT TIME?
A     YES, SIR, I DID.
Q     AND YOU WERE DISCHARGED FOR ACADEMIC REASONS?
A     YES, SIR, MY GRADE POINT AVERAGE WAS LOWER THAN WAS NECESSARY TO PROCEED.
Q     WHEN YOU APPLIED AND YOU WERE ACCEPTED LATER AT NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL LAW SCHOOL, DID YOU BEGIN AT YOUR SECOND YEAR AT NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL, OR DID THEY GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR THE FIRST YEAR, OR WHAT WAS THE--(PAUSE)---
A     NO, SIR, I RECEIVED NO CREDIT BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN LEAVING U.S.C. AND STARTING AGAIN AT NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL.
Q     SO YOU ESSENTIALLY STARTED FROM SCRATCH ONCE YOU WENT TO NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     SO YOU WENT THROUGH THREE MORE FULL YEARS OF LAW SCHOOL?
A     YES, SIR, I DID.
Q     AND YOUR DEGREE FROM NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL, I TAKE IT, WAS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR ACADEMIC STANDARDS?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     YOUR P.D.Q. QUESTION NUMBER 8 REGARDING CONTINUING EDUCATION APPEARS TO BE AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT INCOMPLETE; IF YOU COULD TURN TO THAT?
A     THAT QUESTION?
Q     QUESTION NUMBER 8 REGARDING CONTINUING LEGAL OR JUDICIAL EDUCATION; YOU SAY, FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS I HAVE OFTEN EARNED MORE THAN THE REQUIRED HOURS FOR C.L.E. AND J.C.L.E. STANDARDS; AND AS YOU NOTED PROBABLY FROM OTHER QUESTIONS, I TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORT OF WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS. DO I TAKE IT THAT EACH OF THOSE FIVE YEARS THAT YOU HAVE MET ALL REQUIREMENTS, JUST IN SOME OF THOSE YEARS THAT YOU HAVE EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS?
A     YES, SIR, THAT IS TRUE.
Q     SO IN EVERY YEAR YOU HAVE ACTUALLY MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS?
A     AT LEAST MET THEM.
Q     OKAY. DURING YOUR SERVICE AS A JUDGE, AS A SUMMARY COURT JUDGE, IN CHARLESTON, HAVE YOU ACCEPTED ANY GIFTS FROM ATTORNEYS OR LITIGANTS THAT APPEAR BEFORE YOU?
A     NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT.
Q     WOULD YOUR DEFINITION OF "GIFT" INCLUDE BUSINESS LUNCH, LUNCH, DINNER, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     THE PROVERBIAL "NO CUP OF COFFEE RULE" IS GENERALLY---
A     YES.
Q     HOW DO YOU REGULATE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION? IN SUCH AN INFORMAL COURT SUCH AS YOU HAVE, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT--IF IT'S LIKE MOST SUMMARY COURTS, IT'S NOT LIKE CIRCUIT COURT OR FAMILY COURT; FOLKS KIND OF COME IN AND COME OUT. HOW DO YOU ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THAT IN THAT SETTING?
A     I DO NOT ALLOW IT. I WOULD SAY THAT I AM VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT OCCURRING IN MY COURT OR IN A COURT SETTING; SO, I HAVE TRAINED MY STAFF AND ALL THE PERSONNEL TO SCREEN ANY VISITORS OR ANY PERSONS WHO COME TO COURT AND ASK TO SEE ME OR TALK TO ME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WILL NOT DISCUSS MATTERS WITH ANY LITIGANTS, SPECIFICALLY PRECEDING ANY LITIGATION. OFTEN INDIVIDUALS DO NEED SOME ASSISTANCE WITH EFFECTING APPEALS AND MAKING THEIR COMPLAINTS IN WRITING, AND SOMETIMES WE DO AID THEM TO THAT EXTENT BECAUSE WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT, BUT I DO NOT CARE FOR EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND AM CHALLENGED EVERY DAY WITH THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION; AS A SUMMARY COURT JUDGE, OFTEN YOU KNOW WE ARE INVOLVED WITH LITIGATION THAT INVOLVES OUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS, AND I AVOID THAT STRINGENTLY.
Q     MR. WHIPPER, WHEN YOU WENT ON THE SUMMARY COURT BENCH IN CHARLESTON, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN 1988?
A     IT WAS IN 1986.
Q     '86?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     YOU WENT ON AT A FAIRLY YOUNG AGE FOR A PRACTICING ATTORNEY WHO HAD ONLY BEEN OUT OF LAW SCHOOL FOR FIVE YEARS.
A     YES.
Q     WHY DID YOU OPT TO GO ON A JUDICIAL POSITION AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE, AS OPPOSED TO PRACTICING LAW?
A     I HAD YOUNG CHILDREN, AND I THOUGHT THAT WOULD HELP ME TO BE AVAILABLE FOR MY FAMILY, AT THAT TIME IN MY LIFE PREDICT A LITTLE BIT MORE WHEN I WOULD BE HOME AND BE AVAILABLE TO THEM. THAT WAS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR DOING THAT.
Q     IT WOULD SEEM TO BE A NATURAL QUESTION FOR SOMEONE ON THIS PANEL; SO, I WILL ASK IT, HOPING THAT IT DOESN'T OFFEND ANYONE, BUT PERHAPS BEING ON THE SUMMARY COURT BENCH IN CHARLESTON COUNTY MAY NOT ALLOW YOU TO DEVELOP THE BREADTH OF EXPERIENCE YOU MAY NEED BEING ON THE FAMILY COURT BENCH THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE GARNERED IF YOU HAD PRACTICED IN THE AREA OF FAMILY LAW DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. HOW WOULD YOU ANSWER THAT SORT OF QUESTION OR CRITICISM?
A     IT'S MY--TO AN EXTENT I ACCEPT THAT ANALYSIS, EXCEPT THAT, OF COURSE, I DO HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH PRACTICING LAW WITH A PUBLIC AGENCY LAW FIRM, BUT THE SUMMARY COURT DOES NOT OFFER THE COMPLEXITIES OFTEN OF ISSUES; SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T OFFER THE COMPLEXITY OF ISSUES, BUT WE OFTEN HANDLE THOSE CASES, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DO NOT--ARE NOT COVERED BY THE FAMILY COURT: ALL OF YOUR COHABITATION CASES, WHERE YOU HAVE PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS, FOR SOME WAY OF DESCRIBING THAT; IN THE FORM OF CLAIM AND DELIVERIES; YOUR DOMESTIC ABUSES ACT - ALL THIS OCCURS IN MY LEVEL OF COURT, WHICH WE HANDLE OFTEN. NOW AS A SUMMARY COURT JUDGE, I FEEL THAT MY EXPOSURE TO ALWAYS WHAT IS AN EMOTIONALLY CHARGED FORUM GIVES ME A LOT OF, I GUESS, TEMPERAMENT TRAINING TO DEAL WITH FAMILY COURT MATTERS; AND, SO, I FEEL BENEFITTED BY THE SUMMARY COURT EXPERIENCE TO THAT DEGREE, TO THAT DEGREE AND THAT EXTENT. ALSO AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE--I MEAN A SUMMARY COURT JUDGE--EXCUSE ME--LET'S SAY GOOD PERCENTAGE--I CAN'T--REALLY, I HAVE NEVER ANALYZED THE AMOUNT, BUT A GREAT PERCENTAGE OF MY TRIALS ARE BENCH TRIALS, AND THAT MEANS THAT I AM BOTH THE JUDGE AND THE JURY MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
Q     MR. WHIPPER, I WOULD TAKE IT AS A GIVEN, JUST FROM HEARING YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, THAT YOU ARE CERTAINLY AS WELL-QUALIFIED AS ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN THAT AREA, BUT IN THE AREA OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF DOMESTIC MATTERS, WHETHER IT BE MARITAL LITIGATION OR JUVENILE JUSTICE, THAT IS WHERE MY QUESTION GOES. YOU MENTIONED YOUR PREVIOUS LEGAL EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE, FROM 1984 TO 1986 IN THE AREA OF CIVIL LAW; YOU DID SINGLE CLIENT REPRESENTATION, BANKRUPTCIES, CONSUMER ISSUES, DOMESTIC ISSUES, AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     DURING THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WHAT PART OF YOUR PRACTICE WAS DOMESTIC IN NATURE?
A     NOW IN THAT AREA, WE WERE--THAT OFFICE WAS ABOUT 50 PERCENT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS.
Q     YOU WERE IN THE LEGAL SERVICES OFFICE, I TAKE IT, IN CHARLESTON COUNTY?
A     YES. AND IT WAS PROBABLY MORE LIKE 75 PERCENT.
Q     HOW ABOUT YOUR ACTUAL PRACTICE?
A     MY ACTUAL PRACTICE, ALSO, CASES--THE DISCREPANCY COMES IN WHEN CASES BECOME HANDLED TO--I CARRIED A NUMBER OF, I GUESS, 35 TO 40 PERCENT OF DOMESTIC.
Q     IF I ASKED YOU TO QUANTIFY THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT YOU HAVE APPEARED IN FAMILY COURT IN THE CAPACITY OF AN ATTORNEY HANDLING A CLIENT'S MATTERS DURING THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WOULD IT BE ONCE A WEEK, WOULD IT BE LESS THAN THAT? WOULD IT BE ONCE A MONTH? HOW OFTEN WOULD IT BE?
A     IT WOULD BE MORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF MAYBE ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS.
Q     AND DURING THOSE APPEARANCES OVER THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD, HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE DOMESTIC MATTERS RELATED MARITAL LITIGATION, AND HOW MANY WERE JUVENILE JUSTICE MATTERS?
A     OH, IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, ALL OF THEM WERE DEALING WITH MARITAL MATTERS; NONE DEALING WITH JUVENILES.
Q     ALL MARITAL MATTERS?
A     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q     MR. WHIPPER, YOU WERE RATED QUALIFIED BY THE BAR?
A     YES.
Q     WHICH I DON'T MEAN TO SAY THAT IS NOT A GOOD RATING; IT CERTAINLY MEANS THAT YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO SEEK THIS POSITION, BUT IT WAS NOT THE HIGHEST RATING THAT THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN TO YOU.
A     I UNDERSTAND.
Q     WERE YOU AWARE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY DID NOT RATE YOU WELL-QUALIFIED OR HIGHLY QUALIFIED?
A     NO, SIR, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. I ONLY HAD MY SUSPICIONS.
Q     WHEN THEY NOTIFIED YOU, THEY GAVE YOU, I GUESS, A LETTER OR DID THEY ORALLY TELL YOU WHAT YOUR RATING WAS?
A     I WAS NOTIFIED BY A LETTER.
Q     A LETTER; DID YOU MAKE ANY FURTHER CONTACT WITH THE BAR TO ASK THEM WHAT THEIR REASONS WERE?
A     NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q     WHEN THEY INTERVIEWED YOU, AND I TAKE IT THAT THEY CAME TO INTERVIEW YOU MUCH AS THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE MENTIONED, DID THEY GIVE YOU ANY INDICATION BEFORE THAT INTERVIEW WAS OVER WHAT THEY FOUND TO BE YOUR WEAKNESSES?
A     YES, THEY DID. IN FACT, THEY SAID THAT I DID NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL FAMILY COURT PRACTICE.
Q     DID THEY GIVE YOU ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SECOND HEARING TO BRING IN WITNESSES OR TO BRING FURTHER MATERIALS TO CONVINCE THEM THAT YOU DID HAVE MORE OF A SUBSTANTIVE PRACTICE IN THIS AREA THAN THEY PERHAPS THOUGHT?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     MOVING ON TO QUESTIONS OF TEMPERAMENT, IF I COULD, MR. WHIPPER, YOU HAVE THE ONE SPECIAL ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHER CANDIDATES THAT YOU SERVE AS JUDGE AND YOU HAVE HAD PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA; TELL US HOW YOU CONDUCT YOURSELF IN THE COURTROOM, AND HAS ANYBODY EVER HAD CAUSE TO COMPLAIN THAT YOU WERE NOT EXACTLY WHAT A JUDGE OUGHT TO BE?
A     NO, SIR, THEY DID NOT HAVE CAUSE TO COMPLAIN, BUT THEY MAY HAVE COMPLAINED. (LAUGHTER.)
A     I NORMALLY AM OPERATING IN THE COURTROOM, OF COURSE, UNDERSTAND THAT FOR THE MOST PART WE ARE DEALING WITH LAY PERSONS; MY POSITION IS THAT I MUST BE PATIENT, I MUST BE COURTEOUS, AND I MUST BE ENCOURAGING TO THE PARTIES TO FLESH OUT AND WORK OUT THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE US. OFTEN WHAT I HAVE TO DO IN THAT COURT, AND IT REQUIRES THAT I PAY STRICT ATTENTION, I ALLOW LITIGANTS TO TELL ME WHAT IS ON THEIR MINDS BECAUSE I HAVE TO OFTEN--I HAVE TO OFTEN CATEGORIZE OR CHARACTERIZE THEIR COMPLAINTS INTO LEGAL ISSUES BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DO IT; SO, THIS REQUIRES THAT I DO TAKE A LISTENING ATTITUDE OR TAKE THE APPROACH OF PATIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING, AND SOMETIMES I HAVE TO ENCOURAGE OR URGE IN ORDER TO GET WHAT WOULD BE A LEGAL ISSUE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME DETERMINATION OF THEIR PARTICULAR GRIEVANCE OR POSITION. THE SUMMARY COURT HAS GIVEN ME THE UNIQUE EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE, OF HAVING TO DO--HAVING TO BE BOTH--COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES, AS WELL AS A TRIER OF FACT. I AM REQUIRED TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT WILL ESSENTIALLY GET TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, WHICH WOULD BE NEUTRAL IN NATURE, BUT PROBING AND INQUIRING OF BOTH SIDES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHERE THE ISSUES AND FACTS LIE; AND I HAVE TO DO THAT, AS WELL AS MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHERE THE TRUTH MAY LIE IN THE SITUATION. THIS IS THE APPROACH I TAKE, AND I TRY TO REMAIN PATIENT, AND I TRY TO REMAIN DETACHED AND OBJECTIVE.
Q     YOU HEARD ME ASK EARLIER OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES IF ONCE YOU ARE ON THE BENCH, YOU'VE BEEN ELECTED TO THE FAMILY COURT, AND THERE'S AN ATTORNEY APPEARING BEFORE YOU AND HE NOTICES THAT YOU'VE TAKEN A RIGHT TURN OR LEFT TURN FROM YOUR USUAL HIGH STANDARD OF TEMPERAMENT AND TREATING FOLKS THE WAY THEY OUGHT TO BE, AND THAT FELLOW COMES TO YOU AND SAYS, YOU KNOW, "JUDGE, I'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS, SOMETHING SEEMS TO BE THE MATTER"; WHAT IS GOING TO BE YOUR RECEPTION TO THAT? ARE YOU GOING TO HOLD THAT AGAINST THE FELLOW? DO YOU THINK THAT IS HIS RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY?
A     I WOULD WELCOME FEEDBACK. I WOULD, ALSO, OF COURSE, HAVE TO EVALUATE THIS FEEDBACK TO BE SURE THAT IT IS NOT THE KIND OF FEEDBACK DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE MY RULING IN THEIR BEHALF THE NEXT TIME THEY APPEAR BEFORE ME; SO, VALUING IN THAT WAY, IF IT'S POSITIVE AND SEEMS TO BE QUESTIONING MY ASPECTS, I WOULD LISTEN AND DISCUSS IT.
Q     WHAT TYPE OF WORKDAY DO YOU KEEP NOW IN THE SUMMARY COURT? WHEN DOES IT START AND WHEN IS IT OVER?
A     MY COURT DAY STARTS BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9:00 AND IT ENDS WHEN I CAN LEAVE. NORMALLY, I GUESS, I LEAVE AROUND 6:00 OR 6:30.
Q     YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD YOUNG CHILDREN AT THE TIME YOU SOUGHT THE POSITION IN 1986, I BELIEVE. DO YOU STILL HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN?
A     I STILL HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN.
Q     OUT OF FAIRNESS TO MRS. SEGARS-ANDREWS, I ASK THE SAME QUESTION, AND I INTEND TO ASK THIS QUESTION OF EVERYONE WHO HAS YOUNG CHILDREN.
A     I'M GLAD YOU ARE DOING THAT, COUNSELOR.
Q     DO YOU FORESEE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY PROBLEM BALANCING THAT INTEREST OF KEEPING, TAKING CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND MEETING THOSE NEEDS AT HOME WITH SERVING ON THE BENCH?
A     NO, SIR, I DON'T. I FORESEE THAT IT WILL, OF COURSE, BE A CHALLENGE TO MAINTAIN SOME APPROPRIATE BALANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO BENEFIT FROM MY FATHERHOOD, AS WELL AS ME BENEFIT FROM THEIR BEING MY CHILDREN.
Q     HAVE YOU PUBLISHED ANY WORKS OR SPOKEN AT ANY C.L.E.'S OR J.C.L.E.'S, WHETHER IT BE ON DOMESTIC MATTERS OR ON SUMMARY COURT MATTERS DURING YOUR SERVICE ON THE BENCH?
A     I HAVE NOT PUBLISHED, BUT I HAVE MADE PRESENTATIONS. AND I MIGHT ADD THAT ONE THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES, I HAVE APPEARED AT SEVERAL SEMINARS INVOLVING LANDLORD/TENANT MATTERS AND HAVE MADE SEVERAL PRESENTATIONS, AS WELL AS I HAVE TAUGHT AT TRIDENT TECHNICAL COLLEGE.
Q     I NOTICED THAT. NOW YOUR WORK THERE AT TRIDENT COLLEGE IS IN WHAT AREA? JUST BRIEF THE COMMITTEE ON THIS.
A     IT WAS A GENERAL SURVEY COURSE ON THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q     AND HOW LONG DID YOU TEACH THAT COURSE?
A     I TAUGHT THAT FOR ONE TERM.
Q     YOUR HEALTH, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU ARE HAVING NO HEALTH PROBLEMS; IS THAT---
A     NO MAJOR HEALTH PROBLEMS. I AM RECUPERATING FROM A BACK INJURY FROM AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IN FEBRUARY OF 1992, WHICH SHOULD NOT POSE A PROBLEM.
Q     I FEAR ASKING THIS NEXT QUESTION ABOUT PLEDGES BECAUSE I KNOW THAT A MOTHER WILL ALWAYS PLEDGE THAT SHE WILL DO ANYTHING A SON WANTS, OR AT LEAST THE RIGHT THINGS THAT A SON WANTS, AND I SEE MRS.---
A     I SEE YOU HAVE MISSED THE ONE BLUES TUNE THAT SAYS, "NO ONE LOVES ME, BUT MY MOTHER; BUT SHE COULD BE JIVING, TOO." (LAUGHTER.)
Q     WITH THAT COMMENT, I WILL JUST REMIND YOU BETTER HAVE A GOOD MOTHER'S DAY PRESENT. ASIDE FROM YOUR MOTHER, HAS ANY MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLEDGED TO YOU, WHETHER CONDITIONALLY OR OTHERWISE, THEIR SUPPORT?
A     NO, MY MOTHER HASN'T PLEDGED HER SUPPORT EITHER.
Q     I UNDERSTAND.
A     BUT, NO, SIR, NO ONE HAS.
Q     AND IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, HAVE YOU AUTHORIZED ANY OTHER PERSON TO SEEK PLEDGES, WHETHER THEY BE CONDITIONAL OR OTHERWISE FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY?
A     NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT.
Q     HAS ANY MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY COME TO YOU AND SAID, "MR. WHIPPER, IF YOU CAN JUST GET THROUGH THE SCREENING COMMITTEE AND BE FOUND QUALIFIED, I GUARANTEE YOU I CAN DELIVER YOU 'X' NUMBER OF VOTES"?
A     NO ONE HAS.
Q     WOULD YOU UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH THIS COMMITTEE WOULD VIEW THAT IN TERMS OF AN EFFORT TO BYPASS THIS COMMITTEE?
A     YES.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WOULD GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ASKED ALL THE QUESTIONS?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
Q     (BY MR. COUICK) MR. WHIPPER, IF YOU COULD PROVIDE MRS. SATTERWHITE WITH A LIST OF THOSE FOLKS THAT YOU GAVE TO THE BAR AS BEING REFERENCES ON YOUR BEHALF, JUST SO THAT WE COULD CONTACT THEM AND VERIFY WHETHER THEY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BAR.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     AND ONE FINAL QUESTION, I NOTE THAT YOU ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE LIST $135 IN EXPENDITURES IN SEEKING THIS POSITION, BUT YOU HAVE YET TO MAKE A FILING WITH EITHER THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE OR HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE REGARDING THOSE EXPENDITURES; I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE GENERAL ETHICS LAW AND ASK YOU TO COMPLY WITH IT.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     I DO NOT SAY THAT YOU ARE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH IT NOW, BUT WOULD JUST POINT THAT OUT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR MOORE.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MR. WHIPPER, RECALLING YOUR INTERVIEW WITH THE BAR, HOW MANY EVALUATORS WERE PRESENT?
A     THERE WERE THREE; WELL, THERE WERE TWO PRESENT AND ONE BY PHONE AT THE SAME TIME; IT WAS A CONFERENCE CALL.
Q     I SEE. DID THEY TELL YOU IN WHAT PART OF THE STATE THEY WERE LOCATED?
A     YES, SIR, THEY DID.
Q     COULD YOU TELL US THAT?
A     ONE WAS FROM CHARLESTON COUNTY. ONE WAS FROM HORRY COUNTY. AND THE OTHER ONE WAS FROM ORANGEBURG COUNTY. ORANGEBURG, CHARLESTON, AND MYRTLE BEACH.
Q     DID THEY SPEAK TO WHEN THE RATINGS WOULD BE PUBLISHED?
A     NO, SIR, THEY DIDN'T SAY WHEN IT WOULD BE PUBLISHED. THEY MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD GET A RESPONSE ON THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY. I WAS INTERVIEWED THAT MONDAY.
CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q     MR. WHIPPER, AT THE TIME THAT--WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE YOUR RATING FROM THE BAR?
A     THE 21ST OF APRIL, THAT AFTERNOON.
Q     DID YOU RECEIVE FROM THE BAR ANY RATINGS ON ANY OTHER CANDIDATES?
A     NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q     SINCE THAT TIME, UP UNTIL TODAY, UNTIL THEY WERE READ, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE RESULTS OF THAT SURVEY ON ANY OTHER CANDIDATE?
A     NOT UNTIL TODAY.
Q     NOT UNTIL TODAY.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE FOLLOW-UP.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MR. WHIPPER, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD; YOU RECEIVED YOUR RATING ON THE 21ST?
A     I THINK THAT IS CORRECT.
Q     THE SAME DAY YOU WERE INTERVIEWED?
A     I'M SORRY, LET'S SEE. THE 21ST OF APRIL--NO, I WAS INTERVIEWED THAT MONDAY, THE 19TH OF APRIL IS WHEN I WAS INTERVIEWED.
Q     AND YOU RECEIVED THAT BY LETTER?
A     BY LETTER.
Q     ON THE 21ST?
A     ON THE 21ST.
CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q     ONE LAST QUESTION FOR YOU, THE POLITENESS IN A COURTROOM, EVEN-TEMPEREDNESS, WHAT KIND OF VALUE DO YOU PLACE ON THAT QUALIFICATION OF A JUDGE?
A     I THINK THAT IT IS UTMOST. I THINK IT'S PRIORITY NUMBER ONE. I FEEL THAT IT'S THE POSITION OF THE COURT TO--TO THAT EXTENT, IN TERMS OF BEING COURTEOUS, BEING FAIR, AND IMPARTIAL, THAT THAT'S PRIORITY NUMBER ONE WHAT ALL LITIGANTS SHOULD EXPECT WHEN THEY COME TO COURT; THAT IF I PRESENT MY CASE IN A COMPETENT, PROPER WAY, THAT MY CHANCES OF SUCCEEDING OR GETTING MY RELIEF IS AS GOOD AS ANYONE ELSE'S THAT COMES TO THIS COURT; AND TO THAT END, I TAKE THE POSITION OF BEING COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AND FAIR AND LIKE ALL LITIGANTS TO THE EXTENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE--IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE PROTECTING PERCEPTIONS. WHEN LITIGANTS LEAVE THE COURT, THEIR PERCEPTIONS SHOULD BE THAT I HAD A GOOD DAY IN COURT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I FAILED TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     THE PERSON THAT INTERVIEWED FROM THE BAR BY TELEPHONE, DID YOU HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE QUALITY OF QUESTIONS THIS PERSON WAS ASKING YOU? COULD THEY JUDGE YOUR DEMEANOR IN ANSWERING THEM? OR DID THAT NOT OFFEND YOU AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT?
A     I HAVE TO ADMIT, COUNSELOR, THAT IT DID NOT AT THE TIME.
Q     IN ADDITION, WHEN DID YOU SUPPLY THE BAR WITH A LIST OF REFERENCES THAT THEY WERE TO GO TO AND DISCUSS YOUR CANDIDACY? WAS IT BEFORE YOU WERE INTERVIEWED ON THE 19TH?
A     YES, SIR, IT WAS RIGHT AT THE DEADLINE SET BY THEM. THE 6TH OF APRIL.
Q     OKAY, AND ONE LAST QUESTION: AS A JUDGE, THOSE PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE YOU, HAVE YOU ASKED ANY OF THOSE PERSONS TO WRITE LETTERS TO THIS COMMITTEE OR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SEEKING YOUR ELECTION TO THIS POSITION?
A     I DID HAVE ONE GENTLEMAN WHO HAD APPEARED BEFORE ME TO WRITE A LETTER.
Q     COULD YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT SITUATION, WHO IT WAS, WHEN DID HE APPEAR, AND WHEN DID HE SEND THE LETTER, AND DID HE DO IT AT YOUR REQUEST?
A     HE APPEARED BEFORE ME SOMEWHERE AROUND '86, '87. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CASE AT THAT TIME DID NOT GO IN HIS FAVOR. IT WAS A LANDLORD/TENANT MATTER INVOLVING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, AND IT LEAD TO SOME--(PAUSE)---
Q     HAS HE APPEARED BEFORE YOU SINCE THEN?
A     NO, SIR, HE HASN'T.
Q     IS IT LIKELY THAT HE WOULD APPEAR BEFORE YOU AGAIN?
A     (PAUSE.) I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE, COUNSELOR. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT HE DOES IN TERMS OF HANDLING THAT BUSINESS. HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME.
Q     WELL, DOES HE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES IN YOUR AREA?
A     NO, NOT IN MY AREA. HE IS A MEMBER, AN OFFICER OF A GENERAL ASSOCIATION THAT DOES HAVE MEMBERS IN MY AREA.
Q     IF IT WERE LIKELY THAT PERSON WOULD BE APPEARING BEFORE YOU ON A REGULAR BASIS, WOULD YOU SEE THE IMPROPRIETY OF REQUESTING THAT PERSON TO WRITE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     DID YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN YOU CONSIDERED ASKING HIM TO SEND A LETTER?
A     NO, SIR, IT WAS--WHEN HE WROTE THE LETTER, IT WAS IN TERMS OF GIVING SOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHO I AM, AS FAR AS BEING A JUDGE.
Q     BUT IT WAS AT YOUR REQUEST, IS WHAT I'M SAYING?
A     YES, SIR, I DID ASK HIM.
Q     MR. WHIPPER, I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU MADE THE WRONG DECISION. I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, DID YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW LIKELY IT WAS THAT HE WOULD BE BACK BEFORE YOU WHEN YOU ASKED HIM TO WRITE THAT LETTER?
A     NO, I DID NOT. THAT NEVER--IT WAS ONLY IN TERMS OF PAST EXPERIENCE.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. WHIPPER: THANK YOU, SENATOR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE HIT THE POINT NOW THAT WE ARE FINISHED WITH THE CANDIDATES ON THE FAMILY COURT. WHAT WOULD Y'ALL LIKE TO DO AS FAR AS LUNCH PLANS AND THE AFTERNOON SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF GET--
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: 1:15.
SENATOR MOORE: WE'RE STILL IN SESSION.
SENATOR MOORE: IS 2:30--YOU ANTICIPATE HOW MANY CANDIDATES THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH?
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THE TWO CANDIDATES THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY PREVIOUSLY NOTIFIED--MS. CONNOR IS HERE AND MR. HAGOOD IS HERE--AT LEAST. THE NEXT CANDIDATE THAT WOULD BE UP WOULD BE A--WE HAVE ONE OTHER CANDIDATE WITH US TODAY THAT WE COULD TAKE OUT OF ORDER; I BELIEVE JUDGE HOWELL IS HERE. JUDGE HOWELL, CAN YOU COME BACK TODAY?
JUDGE HOWELL: I WILL BE BACK.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, WE WILL PROBABLY TAKE UP THREE CANDIDATES THIS AFTERNOON. COUNSEL INFORMS THAT WE CAN DO THAT IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. WITH THAT, WE WILL STAND AT RECESS UNTIL 2:30.

(RECESS FROM 1:16 P.M. UNTIL 2:30 P.M.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, WE WILL GO BACK ON THE RECORD, AND WE WILL NOW BE ON THE JUDGE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS SEAT #1; AND THE FIRST WITNESS WILL BE JUDGE CAROL CONNOR. GOOD AFTERNOON.
JUDGE CONNOR: HEY.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I NEED YOU TO RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND FOR US.
JUDGE CONNOR: ALL RIGHT, SIR.
CAROL CONNOR, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOU. YOUR LAST SCREENING ACCORDING TO OUR RECORDS WAS DECEMBER THE 10TH, 1987.
A     I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY RIGHT.
Q     ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     I HAVE.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION THAT YOU KNOW OF?
A     I THINK IT'S CORRECT.
Q     IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NOT A BIT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IT SHOULD BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Carol Connor
Home Address:                             Business Address:
6705 Sandy Shore Road         P. O. Box 192
Columbia, SC 29206                 Columbia, SC 29202

2.     She was born in Kingstree, South Carolina, on January 23, 1950. She is presently 43 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     She was married to Palmer Freeman, Jr. on April 26, 1986. She was previously divorced on July 11, 1983. She was the moving party, and the grounds were one year's separation (Richland County Family Court). She has three children: Timothy Connor-Murphy, age 14; Wallace Connor Freeman, age 6; and Daniel McGill Freeman, age 4.

5.     Military Service: None

6.     She attended Converse College, Spartanburg, South Carolina, 1968-1972, B.A.; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, South Carolina, 1973-1976, Juris Doctor.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Circuit Court Judges Annual Meetings
S. C. Trial Lawyers Association (1992) - 12 hours
S. C. Defense Trial Attorney's Association (1992) - 6 hours
Criminal Law Update (1991) - 5 hours
The Future & the Courts (1991) - 10 hours
Criminal Law Update (1990) - 10 hours
Charleston JCLE (1990) - 5 hours
Items of Interest of Circuit Court (1990) - 5 hours
Criminal Law Update (1989) - 5 hours
Nursing Malpractice (on panel - not JCLE) (1989) - 1 hour
Current Issues on Civil Litigation (1989) - 4 hours
Items of Interest in Circuit Court (1989) - 10 hours
S. C. Bar Criminal Law Update (1988) - 5 hours
S. C. Bar Family Law: Child Abuse (1988) - 5 hours
S. C. Bar Current Issues in Circuit Court (1988) - 5 hours
S. C. Bar Eminent Domain (1988) - 5 hours
S. C. Bar Child Abuse & Neglect & Family Legal Services (1987) - 6 hours
S. C. Bar Complex Issues in Family Court, Statutory Update
& Alimony Perspectives (1987) - 12 hours

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
Speaker, Women's Law Association, University of South Carolina Law School
Speaker, 3/15/91, "Fighting Back," Criminal Justice Committee
Speaker, Bench-Bar Conference on Criminal Law, sponsored by S. C. Bar Association
Speaker, Annual Circuit Court Judicial Conference
Speaker, 2/21/93, Goodman Correctional Institution, African American History Month
Speaker, 3/25/92, Washington St. Methodist "Criminal Justice System - Judge's Perspective"
Speaker, 3/27/92, Heathwood Hall Episcopal School - "Role of Women in Politics, Government, Law"
Speaker, 2/20/92, Lexington County Bar Association
Panel, 2/19/92, Educational Radio "Children's Rights"
Speaker, 10/9/92, "Judicial Perspective on Environmental Crimes" CLE sponsored by the S. C. Bar Association
Panel, 2/28/92, South Carolina Evidence Workshop, "Evidentiary Issue"
Speaker, 1990 and 1991, Auto Torts Seminar
Speaker, 12/10/90, Leadership Columbia at Criminal Justice Academy (Sentencing)
Speaker, 9/87, The Citadel Inn of Court Seminar
Speaker, 4/24/90, State Office of Victim Assistance - "Serving Victims of Crime"
Blaney School/ETV, 1/24/92 (Read to Children)

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Circuit, 1988 to present
Family Court Judge, Fifth Circuit, 1984-1988
Private Practice, 1981-1984 (general practice)
Deputy Public Defender, Richland County, 1980-1981
Assistant Public Defender, Richland County, 1977-1980
Assistant South Carolina Attorney General, 1976-1977

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
She was an assistant and Deputy Public Defender in Richland County. In that position, she handled numerous trials, guilty pleas and motions. In fact, she was in the courtroom almost daily. Her cases included murders, armed robberies, rapes, and other serious crimes. Two of the more complicated murders she can remember were State v. Allen Deroin and State v. Charlene Porter. The latter was begun as a death penalty case with five co-defendants. She filed over 20 motions on behalf of her client, and after a week of jury selection the client pled guilty to a lesser charge. State v. Allen Deroin also ended in a guilty plea to a lesser charge. She believes both of these results were attained because of the amount of time she spent in pre-trial preparation. The office of Appellate Defense handled all of their appeals. While in private practice she handled a number of domestic, civil and criminal matters. Two of the most significant civil cases she can recall were Lance Industries v. U. S. and Kathleen Lesesne v. U. S. and Marie Rudisill. Lance involved a suit for monetary damages for negligent publication of false information that was heard in the U. S. Court of Claims in Washington, D.C. Lesesne involved a suit against the U. S. Postal Service and an antique dealer. She tried it in Federal Court and had to pursue involved post-trial remedies to collect the judgment including attaching manuscripts of a book that Mrs. Rudisill was having published in N.Y. about her nephew, Truman Capote. She has now been on the bench for ten years. She is having to reconstruct this answer from memory, because she disposed of all her files several years ago.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:                 See #17 above

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:     See #17 above

20.     Judicial Office:         Circuit Court, Fifth Circuit, 1988-present, elected by the S. C. Legislature
Jurisdiction:             Common Pleas, civil cases, jury and non-jury
General Sessions - criminal cases Family Court, Fifth Circuit, 1984-1988, elected by the S. C. Legislature
Jurisdiction:             Domestic matters (divorce, child support, alimony, equitable division of property, etc.) adoptions, juvenile criminal matters

21.     Five (5) of the most significant orders or opinions:
(a)     Chris Weston and Multimedia, Inc. v. Carolina Research and Development Foundation. This case involved the opening of the University of South Carolina Foundation's records under the Freedom of Information Act concerning President Holderman. She originally heard the matter on cross motions for Summary Judgment by The Greenville News and the University of South Carolina Foundation in June, 1989. The matter was appealed, and the appeal was filed in 1991. She also had to hear incidental motions involving alleged contempt by the Foundation in disposing of records, etc.
(b)     S. C. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control v. Columbia Organic Chemical Co., Inc. This case is significant because there are very few cases in South Carolina involving the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's ability to enforce its regulations and administrative orders. In 1990, after a lengthy hearing involving numerous technical allegations, she issued an Order which basically required the company to comply with a prior administrative order. She retained jurisdiction of the case and ended up again hearing testimony regarding the alleged violations in 1991. After approximately one day of testimony, and after an involved settlement conference, the parties reached a consent agreement. There was also a Supreme Court case which partly involved this case.
(c)     Helen McGill v. University of South Carolina. This case is significant in that it is one of the first that was tried under the South Carolina "Whistleblower Act." The jury trial lasted several days. On appeal, Supreme Court affirmed all issues except that the Court held that the Tort Claims Act does not apply to an action under the Whistleblower Statute and, therefore, the statutory cap of $250,000 would not apply in this case. The court reinstated the original jury verdict of $350,000.
(d)     Michael Lee and Mitchell Lee v. Dunbar Funeral Home. The legal issues in this case are novel in South Carolina. The Restatement 2nd of Torts recognizes the tort of mutilation of a dead body. The South Carolina Courts have never addressed this issue, although a number of states have recognized this cause of action. She presided over the jury trial. The Plaintiffs alleged that their mother's body was mutilated by a rat at the Defendant's funeral home. The case is currently on appeal.
(e)     G. S. Way, Jr. v. Commissioners of Public Works. This case involves a novel issue in South Carolina. The Plaintiff, a developer, sought to be paid as a 70% owner in a water line near Summerville which he had partially paid to install ten years previously. She held that the Commissioners of Public Works were the sole owners of the water line.

24.     Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
She taught tenth grade English at Kingstree High School for approximately 4 months in 1972-1973 for a teacher who was on maternity leave. She was also a waitress at Acadia National Park in Bar Harbor, Maine, for 4 months in 1972-1973.

28.     Arrested or Charged: While on a rafting trip on the Chattooga River, she received a citation from the U. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife for failing to have a life jacket. The U. S. Magistrate suspended the imposition of any fine.

31.     Sued:

(1)     She was sued by her ex-husband for a reduction in child support. An agreement was reached, and the lawsuit was settled 11/13/87.
(2)     She was also sued by Mamie Jackson, a litigant in Richland County.

32.     Disciplined: She has never been the subject of a formal complaint. She has had 6 complaints by disgruntled litigants from 1985-1992. They were all dismissed.

33.     Her health is good. Her last physical was in October of 1991, by Dr. R. Gregg Jowers, 2750 Laurel Street, Suite 103, Columbia, South Carolina 29204.

34.     Hospitalized: She was on maternity leave for 6 weeks in January/February, 1987, and also in July/August, 1988.

36.     She is currently under the treatment of Dr. Lisa Hutto, Palmetto Allergy & Asthma Center, #3 Richland Medical Park, Suite 520, Columbia, South Carolina 29203.

39.     Her husband is a lobbyist. She has also attended several receptions given by lobbyist principals for the Legislature.

43.     Expenditures for candidacy:
Stationery/envelopes/stamps - $482.65 (from 1/28/92 - present)
Phone calls - $94.43 (from 1992 - present)
Some individuals have written letters on her behalf, but she has no way of totaling the amount these individuals may have spent on stamps, etc.
48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Judicature Society; South Carolina Bar Association; Texas Bar Association;
U. S. District Court, District of South Carolina; U. S. Court of Claims; American Judges Association; American Bar Association Juvenile & Family Law Committee of the National Conference of State Trial Judges; S. C. Association of Circuit Court Judges; John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court; Access to Justice Commission

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Community Advisory Board; The Nurturing Center; participant in the USC Judicial Internship Clinic for law students; formerly served on Council on Child Abuse & Neglect; Washington Street United Methodist Church; Superintendent's Parents' Advisory Committee, Richland District II Schools

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Bonita M. Webb, Senior Vice President

Standard Federal
1339 Main Street, P. O. Box 2826
Columbia, SC 29202-2826
(b)     Richard A. Harpootlian
Solicitor, Fifth Judicial Circuit
1701 Main Street, P. O. Box 1987
Columbia, SC 29202
(c)     Heyward E. McDonald, Esquire
McDonald, McKenzie, Fuller, Rubin and Miller
2nd Floor, 1704 Main Street, P. O. Box 58
Columbia, SC 29202-0058
(d)     Isadore E. Lourie, Esquire
Lourie, Curlee, Barrett & Safran
1224 Pickens Street, P. O. Box 12089
Columbia, SC 29211
(e)     Jack B. Swerling, Esquire
1720 Main Street, Suite 301
Columbia, SC 29201

Q     AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORDS OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE RECORDS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE, INCLUDING THE RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S AND THE COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. A CHECK OF SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THERE IS NOTHING THERE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY, WE FIND NOTHING THERE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS, OUR REVIEW OF IT INDICATES THAT THEY ARE NEGATIVE. AND YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD. WE HAVE NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED. WE HAVE NO WITNESSES AS HAVING NOTICED US TO BE PRESENT TO TESTIFY. SO WITH THAT, I TURN IT OVER TO MR. COUICK.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MS. CONNOR, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, LET ME KNOW, OR JUDGE CONNOR, AND IF YOU NEED ANYTHING, LET ME KNOW. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE?
A     I DO.
Q     NOT THE SUMMARY, BUT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONNAIRE?
A     I DO. I WENT AND GOT IT AT LUNCH.
Q     I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME UP ON THAT.
A     OKAY.
Q     AS A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER, JUDGE CONNOR, ON YOUR CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE FILINGS THAT YOU HAVE MADE WITH THE ETHICS COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, YOU HAVE FILED STATEMENTS FOR SEVERAL QUARTERS THAT SAY "MONEY EXPENDED FOR POSTAGE AND CORRESPONDENCE NOT IN EXCESS OF $100."
A     I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WAS PER QUARTER, THAT IT WAS $100 PER QUARTER. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS FILING FOR THAT QUARTER AND THAT WAS THE PERIOD, AND I HAVEN'T SPENT ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF $100 IN ANY QUARTER.
Q     I THOUGHT THAT WAS PROBABLY YOUR IMPRESSION FROM READING THIS, JUDGE. THE COMMITTEE HAS INTERPRETED THAT SO FAR TO BE A CUMULATIVE TOTAL, AND LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE COMMITTEE HAS GIVEN THAT ADVICE TO A COUPLE OF JUDGES.
A     I WILL BE GLAD TO AMEND THAT.
Q     AT YOUR CONVENIENCE JUST UPDATE THAT---
A     I WILL BE GLAD TO.
Q     ---WITH THE COMMITTEE THROUGH MRS. SATTERWHITE.
A     I READ THE ACTUAL LAW ITSELF, AND I GUESS I JUST INTERPRETED IT WRONG.
Q     RIGHT.
A     I THOUGHT IT MEANT PER QUARTER, IF YOU SPENT ANY MORE THAN THAT. I FILED THEM EVERY QUARTER, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS PER, YOU KNOW, PER THAT QUARTER.
Q     WHOEVER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THAT ETHICS ACT MADE SOME MISTAKES EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.
SENATOR MOORE: WILKINS; I TRIED TO TELL HIM AND HE WOULDN'T LISTEN.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     JUDGE CONNOR, WHAT IS THE INTERSTATE INVESTORS? - IT'S A COMPANY THAT YOU---
A     IT'S NOTHING THAT I'M IN. I THINK--IS THAT THE THING THAT MY HUSBAND BOUGHT A WAREHOUSE.
Q     RIGHT. IS THAT WHAT IT IS, IS A HOLDING COMPANY THAT'S---
A     YES. WE ALMOST GOT A DIVORCE OVER IT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T TELL ME ABOUT IT. I THINK HE IS IN WITH THREE OTHER GUYS, AND THEY BOUGHT A WAREHOUSE TOGETHER.
Q     OKAY; SO, IT'S NOT A HOLDING COMPANY FOR STOCK OR WHATEVER?
A     IT'S JUST A CORPORATION OF THE FOUR GUYS WHO BOUGHT A WAREHOUSE.
Q     I'LL TELL YOU WHY I HAVE THE QUESTION: ONE THING THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO IS RUN A CONFLICTS CHECK ON EVERY SITTING JUDGE TO FIND OUT IF YOU MIGHT HAVE SAT IN A CASE WHERE YOU HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST OR YOUR HUSBAND MIGHT HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST. JUST THE NAME "INTERSTATE INVESTORS," I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS AN INVESTMENT GROUP THAT MAYBE GOT TOGETHER ON A PRIVATE BASIS AND INVESTED IN STOCK, BUT FROM YOUR DESCRIPTION AND FROM OUR SEARCH, WE FOUND NO CONFLICTS.
A     IT WAS--I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THIS WAS THE WAY IT WAS UNTIL I STARTED FILLING THIS OUT, AND HAD MY SECRETARY CALL HIM TO FIND OUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVEN IN MY NAME. BUT JUST OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, I WANTED TO LIST IT.
Q     RIGHT.
A     I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS LISTED THAT WAY UNTIL I STARTED FILLING OUT THIS REPORT.
Q     ANOTHER HOUSEKEEPING MEASURE, ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, YOU LISTED YOUR SALARY AND YOU DO NOT BREAK OUT OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED OTHER THAN SALARY, WHETHER IT BE PER DIEM SUBSISTANCE, MILEAGE; AND THE QUESTION ACTUALLY ASKS IN KIND OF A ROUNDABOUT WAY TO IDENTIFY INCOME, FEES, PAYMENTS OR OTHER BENEFITS BY SOURCE OR TYPE. IF WE COULD HAVE YOU UPDATE FOR THE COMMITTEE OTHER MONIES RECEIVED IN YOUR CAPACITY AS THE JUDGE WITH THE STATE?
A     I WILL BE GLAD TO DO THAT.
Q     AND JUST FILE THAT WITH MRS. SATTERWHITE, AS WELL.
A     ALL RIGHT.
Q     JUDGE, IN READING THROUGH YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, ONE OF THE PERSONS THAT OFFERS A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SOLICITOR, MR. RICHARD HARPOOTLIAN. MR. HARPOOTLIAN ALSO APPEARS, AT LEAST I WOULD TAKE, OFTEN IN YOUR COURT, AND IN ASKING FOR HIS RECOMMENDATION, AND ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHERS, WHAT STANDARD HAVE YOU APPLIED SO AS TO AVOID ANY QUESTION THAT MAY BE BROUGHT FOR ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO DO SO OR NOT?
A     WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO WRITE THAT LETTER FOR ME?
Q     OR FOR HIM TO WRITE THAT LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION, IN VIEW OF HIS OFTEN APPEARING BEFORE YOU.
A     WELL, I ASSUMED THAT WHEN THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY WANTED ME TO PICK SOMEBODY WHO KNEW THE MOST ABOUT WHAT I DID IN THE COURTROOM; AND, FRANKLY, I TRIED TO PICK SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE-- SOMEBODY FROM A PROSECUTOR'S STANDPOINT, AND SOMEBODY FROM A DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S STANDPOINT, THINKING THAT YOU ALL WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BOTH POINTS OF VIEW, AND THE SAME THING IN THE LAW FIRMS, I THINK IT'S PEOPLE WHO GET PLAINTIFF'S WORK, AS WELL AS DEFENSE WORK; AS I DID THE SAME THING WITH THE FIVE REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE BAR REQUESTED.
Q     RIGHT.
A     I DON'T THINK THAT SOMEBODY WRITING A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION OF ME WOULD AT ALL QUESTION MY IMPARTIALITY IN A CASE. IF THAT EVER CAME UP, IF SOMEBODY OBJECTED TO THAT, OR THAT ISSUE EVER GAVE UP AND THERE WAS EVEN AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, I CERTAINLY WOULD BE WILLING TO RECUSE MYSELF.
Q     I ASK THE QUESTION MAINLY ABOUT MR. HARPOOTLIAN AS KIND OF A GENERAL INTRODUCTION; YOU HAD SENT OUT, OR PERSONS APPARENTLY ON YOUR BEHALF HAD SENT OUT NUMEROUS LETTERS TO MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND I HAD GONE THROUGH MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WHO I HAD ACCESS TO THEIR CORRESPONDENCE AND PULLED COPIES OF THEIR CORRESPONDENCE OVER THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS AND HAD COMPARED THAT TO THE DOCKETS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FOR COMMON PLEAS, NOT FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS, FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 6, 1990 TO FORWARD. I HAD ASKED FOR---
A     I'M SORRY, JULY OF '92?
Q     '92, EXCUSE ME. JULY 6, '92 AND FORWARD. I HAD ASKED FOR IT FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF JULY, BUT MS. SCOTT DIDN'T HAVE IT READILY AVAILABLE. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PERSONS THAT HAVE WRITTEN LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION, WHO ALSO APPEAR QUITE FREQUENTLY IN YOUR COURTROOM. AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS A TENSION THERE BETWEEN TRYING TO FIND FOLKS THAT KNOW ABOUT YOU; YOU CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO ASK ATTORNEYS WHO DO NOT KNOW ABOUT YOU; AND THIS PENCHANT THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO ASK AN ATTORNEY THAT HAD SOMETHING PENDING UNDER YOU AT THAT TIME, AND PERHAPS EVEN IN THE COURTROOM. HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT? HOW DID YOU PICK THESE FOLKS? WHAT WAS YOUR MEASURING STICK TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE QUESTIONABLE?
A     WELL, I NEVER HAVE DISCUSSED ANY OF THIS IN THE COURTHOUSE.
Q     RIGHT.
A     I ALSO MAINLY IF--IF A LAWYER CAME TO ME AND SAID, "MAY I WRITE A RECOMMENDATION ON YOUR BEHALF?" I ALWAYS SAID YES. IF I ASKED SOMEBODY TO DO IT, IT WAS SOMEBODY WHO WAS A FRIEND OF MINE---
Q     RIGHT.
A     ---NOT JUST A LAWYER. I MEAN, I HAVE HAD PEOPLE THAT I WENT TO COLLEGE WITH, AND I'M SURE THAT I HAVE HAD AN EQUAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NON-LAWYERS TO THOSE WHO ARE LAWYERS; JUST BASICALLY, I HAVE LOOKED FOR FRIENDS WHO I FEEL LIKE WOULD KNOW ABOUT MY CHARACTER, WHO WOULD KNOW ABOUT MY TEMPERAMENT, KNOWLEDGE, INTELLECT, WHATEVER, TO WRITE LETTERS TO PEOPLE THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW. I DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S ANY DIFFERENT TO HAVE SOMEBODY WRITE A LETTER ON MY BEHALF TO A LEGISLATOR THAN IT IS TO HAVE A REFERENCE TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND I HAVE HAD LEGISLATORS FROM THIS COMMITTEE, FROM THE GENERAL LEGISLATURE APPEAR IN FRONT OF ME, AND I THINK I HAVE RULED IN FAVOR OF A NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS AND I HAVE RULED AGAINST A NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS, AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
Q     RIGHT.
A     AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THEY HOLD THAT AGAINST ME, OR THAT ANYBODY THAT I'VE RULED AGAINST WOULD COME IN HERE AND FIND ME UNQUALIFIED BECAUSE I RULED AGAINST THEM. I THINK IF A SITUATION EVER CAME UP, IF THERE WERE A PERSON WHO HAD DONE AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF LETTER-WRITING OR THAT SORT OF THING, AND I FELT UNCOMFORTABLE IF THEY CAME IN FRONT OF ME, AND I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT I CAN OBJECTIVELY THINK ABOUT THIS CASE IN TERMS OF THE ISSUES, THAT I FEEL LIKE THAT MY FRIENDSHIP WITH THAT PERSON, YOU KNOW, WOULD OVERSHADOW THE ISSUES, I WOULD CERTAINLY RECUSE MYSELF IN THAT CASE. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
Q     AND, JUDGE, MY QUESTION IS GEARED TOWARD NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS AN IMPROPRIETY HERE. IT'S JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHT PROCESSES AS YOU WENT THROUGH DECIDING HOW TO APPROACH THIS. AND YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST PERSON WE HAVE ASKED. I BELIEVE YOU--AND YOU WEREN'T HERE LAST WEEK, WE ASKED JUDGE HOWELL ABOUT A QUESTION ABOUT A LETTER THAT HAD BEEN SENT ON HIS BEHALF.
A     I JUST HAVE NEVER DONE IT WHEN I HAVE HAD A CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT.
Q     OKAY.
A     IN TERMS OF SOMEBODY WHO WOULD EVER APPEAR IN FRONT OF ME AGAIN, I GUESS I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT IN THAT RESPECT; BUT I MEAN, CERTAINLY, IF IT CAME UP AT THE TIME, IF ANYBODY RAISED IT OR THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR ME TO HEAR A CASE BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAD WRITTEN A LETTER ON MY BEHALF, I HAVE NEVER BEEN RETICENT TO RECUSE MYSELF IF THERE WAS ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
Q     JUDGE, LET ME ASK A QUESTION THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE BLACK-AND-WHITE AND CERTAINLY GET YOUR ANSWER ON IT.
A     SURE.
Q     IF YOU WERE ON THE BENCH AND YOU WERE JUST IMMEDIATELY FINISHING A TRIAL OR MAYBE YOU WERE WAITING FOR THE JURY TO COME BACK, OR WHATEVER, AND THERE WERE ATTORNEYS STANDING AROUND AND YOU NOTED THAT ONE OF THEM WAS A LEGISLATOR, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE AT THAT POINT IN TIME TO DISCUSS YOUR CANDIDACY?
A     ABSOLUTELY NOT. I WOULD NEVER. I MEAN, THE SAME WAY THAT I WOULD NEVER TALK TO A LAWYER ABOUT WRITING A LETTER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COURTHOUSE. AND I HAVE BEEN 100 PERCENT SURE NEVER TO DISCUSS IN THE CONTEXT OF A CASE OR LITIGATION THAT WAS GOING ON RIGHT THEN, OR ANYTHING I HAD UNDER ADVISEMENT, BECAUSE OFTEN WHEN I HAVE NON-JURY COURT THAT I HAVE SO MANY MOTIONS THAT I HAVE TO KEEP THINGS UNDER ADVISEMENT, AND I WOULD NEVER ASK SOMEBODY TO WRITE A LETTER ON MY BEHALF IF I HAD SOMETHING UNDER ADVISEMENT AT THE TIME.
Q     JUDGE, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WERE HEARING THIS MORNING WHEN I WAS ASKING MR. JOHNSON OF THE BAR OR KIND OF EXPRESSING AT LEAST COUNSEL'S VIEW THAT UNDER THE THREE SEPARATE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, THIS BODY, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST OF HAVING GOOD JUDGES, AND THAT JUDGES ARE PICKED INDEPENDENT OF ANY DESIRE ON THE JUDICIARY TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF SELF-SUSTAINING BODY WHERE JUDGES WOULD MORE OR LESS PICK JUDGES, AS OPPOSED TO THE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND I ASKED HIM THE QUESTION, DO THEY HAVE MUCH INPUT FROM JUDGES IN THEIR DETERMINATION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS. I WOULD ASK YOU AT THIS POINT, HAVE YOU ASKED ANY JUDGE TO LOBBY FOR YOU, EITHER FOR PLEDGES OR FOR GETTING THE BAR'S FAVORABLE RATING OR WHATEVER. I GUESS, WHAT I'M SAYING IS, HAVE YOU ASKED ANY JUDGE TO HELP YOU WITH THE BAR, OR HELP YOU WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY?
A     I HAVEN'T ASKED ANY JUDGE TO HELP ME WITH ANYTHING BECAUSE UNDER THE JUDICIAL CANNONS OF CONDUCT THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER. I DID HAVE ONE JUDGE COME UP TO ME AND SORT OF MAKE A JOKE IN THE HALL THAT A MEMBER OF THE BAR HAD CONTACTED HER. IT TURNED OUT THAT IT WAS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, AND SHE JUST SAID, "OH, THE BAR CAME BY TO SEE ME ABOUT YOU," AND KIND OF LAUGHING, AND THAT WAS THE END OF THE DISCUSSION. OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NEVER TALKED TO ANYBODY BECAUSE I HAD NO IDEA WHO THE BAR WAS GOING TO INTERVIEW AHEAD OF TIME.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD ANY MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU CAN GET BY SCREENING, NO MATTER WHAT MAY COME UP, AS LONG AS YOU CAN GET THAT "QUALIFIED" RATING THAT YOU ARE OKAY BECAUSE THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF THE VOTES?
A     NO.
Q     JUDGE, ON SOME OTHER ETHICAL ISSUES, IN TALKING ABOUT GIFTS, AND YOU HAVE HEARD THE QUESTION BEFORE AND YOU KNOW WHERE I'M HEADING; I ASSUME THAT YOU AGREE WITH THE RULE THAT YOU DON'T TAKE GIFTS FROM LITIGANTS APPEARING BEFORE YOU OR THOSE OFTEN APPEARING BEFORE YOU. HOW STRICTLY DO YOU APPLY THAT RULE? DOES IT APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF LUNCHES AND BUSINESS LUNCHES? HOW BROADLY DO YOU DEFINE THE EXCEPTION OF REGULAR SOCIAL HOSPITALITY?
A     WELL, THE RICHLAND COUNTY BAR HAS LUNCHES AND INVITES US AS JUDGES TO COME FOR FREE, AND I THINK UNDER THE JUDICIAL CANNONS THAT--YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOTTEN OPINIONS THAT AS JUDGES WE SHOULDN'T LET INDIVIDUAL LAWYERS BUY US LUNCH, BUT IT'S OKAY TO ACCEPT AN INVITATION FROM THE TRIAL LAWYERS TO THEIR CONVENTION AND THE BAR ASSOCIATION TO THEIR CONVENTION, AND TO THE RICHLAND COUNTY BAR AS LONG AS IT'S A GROUP OF LAWYERS, AND--(PAUSE)---
Q     ASIDE FROM GROUPS, HOW WOULD YOU APPLY THE POLICY OF NOT ACCEPTING GIFTS?
A     I DON'T. I NEVER HAVE A LAWYER BUY ME LUNCH.
Q     ANY OTHER TYPE OF SOCIAL HOSPITALITY THAT HAS PROVED TO BE A PROBLEM THAT YOU HAVE HAD TO CONFRONT?
A     I CAN'T SAY THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A PARTY AT A LAWYER'S HOUSE. AND I CAN'T THINK RIGHT OFF, BUT I'M SURE --YOU KNOW, MY HUSBAND IS A LAWYER, AND JUST BEING IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, I'M SURE I HAVE BEEN TO PARTIES AT LAWYERS'S HOUSES. AGAIN---
Q     WHICH IS CERTAINLY PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CANNONS; IT'S JUST HOW BIG IS THE PARTY? DOES IT INCLUDE FLYING TO NEW YORK AT SOMEONE ELSE'S EXPENSE FOR A PARTY?
A     NO, I WOULDN'T. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT GOING TO LOCAL PARTIES. THAT I'M AWARE OF, I HAVEN'T ACCEPTED ANYTHING IN THOSE KINDS OF TERMS FROM A LAWYER.
Q     FOR EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT IN YOUR COURTROOM, BOTH IN TERMS OF JUST CONVERSATION AND THE DRAFTING OF ORDERS THAT ATTORNEYS MAY DO FOR YOU?
A     WELL, I JUST HAVE A ROUTINE PRACTICE THAT I--MY SECRETARY ALMOST HAS A FORM IN THE COMPUTER THAT IT HAS A RE. AND IT HAS THE NAME OF A CASE AND IT'S DEAR MR. OR MRS. SO AND SO AND MRS. SO AND SO; WHEN I HAVE A CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT, I JUST SEND LETTERS TO BOTH LAWYERS AND SEND THEM OUT AT THE SAME TIME SAYING THIS IS MY RULING. I WOULD ASK THAT SO AND SO PREPARE AN ORDER. IF EITHER PARTY WISHES, YOU MAY ALSO SUBMIT--IF THE LOSING SIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, WANTS TO SUBMIT AN ORDER, YOU MAY DO IT. AND, PLEASE, WHEN YOU SEND ME THE PROPOSED ORDER, SEND A COPY TO THE OTHER SIDE. IT'S JUST A STANDARD PRACTICE. THAT'S THE WAY I RULE ON CASES. AND SOMETIMES I RULE FROM THE BENCH. AND THAT'S MAINLY ON NON-JURY MOTIONS AND STUFF. AND A LOT OF TIMES IT'S A JURY MAKING THE RULING AND IT'S ANNOUNCED RIGHT THERE IN THE COURTROOM. IF I HAVE TAKEN SOMETHING UNDER ADVISEMENT, THAT IS THE WAY I HANDLE IT.
Q     JUDGE, IN THE AREA OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, YOU ARE CERTAINLY KNOWN FOR RUNNING AN OPEN COURTROOM, AT LEAST IN THE RICHLAND COUNTY BAR; BUT LET'S SAY THAT YOU TAKE THAT LEFT OR RIGHT TURN IN TERMS OF DEMEANOR AND AN ATTORNEY FEELS LIKE HE HAS SOME REASON TO COMPLAIN. HAS THAT HAPPENED TO DATE? AND IF IT HAS, HOW HAVE YOU HANDLED IT? OR IF IT DID HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE IT? WHAT WOULD BE YOUR IMPRESSION OF AN ATTORNEY THAT WOULD COME TO YOU AND SAY, "JUDGE I'M CONCERNED"?
A     IN REAL LIFE THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS GOING TO DO THAT IS SOMEBODY WHO REALLY IS MY FRIEND BECAUSE, I MEAN, A LAWYER WHO IS WORRIED THAT I'M GOING TO HOLD THAT AGAINST HIM ISN'T GOING TO COME AND TELL ME THAT. I HAVE HAD FRIENDS JOKE WITH ME AND SAY, "I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN HOLDING CRIMINAL COURT TOO LONG." MY FIRST YEAR ON THE BENCH, I HAD--I WAS A CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FOR A WHOLE YEAR AND I HAD NOTHING BUT CRIMINAL COURT IN RICHLAND COUNTY FOR A WHOLE YEAR, AND THERE WERE--YOU KNOW, I HAD SOME FRIENDS WHO CAME UP TO ME BY THE END OF THAT YEAR AND SAID, "I THINK YOU BETTER GET SOME CIVIL COURT FOR A WHILE BECAUSE YOU'RE IRRITABLE IN THE COURTROOM." AND THAT, I'D SAY THAT IS ABOUT THE ONLY CONTEXT THAT IT HAS COME UP, AND, YOU KNOW, NOBODY HAS EVER OTHER THAN THAT COME UP WITH A REAL SERIOUS FACE.
Q     HOW WELL DID YOU RECEIVE THAT?
A     I MEAN, I JOKED AND SAID, "LISTEN, NOTHING WOULD SUIT ME BETTER," BECAUSE BY THAT TIME I WAS FEELING THE SAME WAY.
Q     WHAT OTHER RULES DO YOU FOLLOW IN TERMS OF TEMPERAMENT? WHAT DO YOU THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR A JUDGE, HOW TO ACT BOTH TO LITIGANTS AND ATTORNEYS?
A     WELL, YOU KNOW, I HAVE OFTEN THOUGHT ABOUT THIS BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL SAY--I HAVE HAD TO GIVE TALKS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'M THE ONLY WOMAN CIRCUIT JUDGE AND PEOPLE WILL SAY, "WHAT IS IT LIKE BEING A WOMAN AND BEING A JUDGE?" AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE MEN IN GENERAL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES MORE IN TERMS OF THEIR JOBS THAN WOMEN. MY MAMA WAS A HOUSEWIFE WHEN I WAS GROWING UP. I GUESS WOMEN DON'T TEND AS MUCH TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF A JOB. SO I DON'T REALLY THINK OF MYSELF AS A JUDGE. I MEAN, I DON'T WALK AROUND DAY-TO-DAY THINKING OF MYSELF AS A JUDGE; AND, THEREFORE, I THINK I AM PERCEIVED AS BEING PRETTY, YOU KNOW, APPROACHABLE AND NOT KIND OF--YOU KNOW, EVEN IN THE HALLS IN TERMS OF SPEAKING TO BAILIFFS AND SPEAKING TO COURT PERSONNEL AND EVERYTHING, I DON'T HAVE AN IMAGE OF MYSELF AS HAVING ON A ROBE AND BEING BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE, AND I THINK IT'S REAL IMPORTANT; AND I MEAN, IT'S A THIN LINE BECAUSE I DO THINK IN THE COURTROOM IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN DEMEANOR OF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS IMPORTANT AND THIS IS SERIOUS, AND THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SERIOUSNESS IN THE COURTROOM. YOU CAN'T JUST BE BACK-SLAPPING BAILIFFS AS YOU WALK IN THE COURTROOM.
Q     RIGHT.
A     SO I THINK IT'S A THIN LINE BETWEEN TRYING TO MAINTAIN A-- YOU KNOW, AND RULE ON CASES AND BE ASSERTIVE WHEN YOU HAVE TO BE, BUT YET BE COURTEOUS AT THE SAME TIME.
Q     JUDGE, I GUESS EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE, BUT YOU ARE FAIRLY YOUTHFUL IN TERMS OF SERVICE ON THE BENCH AND IN TERMS OF YOUR CHRONOLOGIC AGE, AND YOU'VE GOT PLENTY OF TIME LEFT TO EITHER SERVE ON THE BENCH OR PRACTICE LAW. THIS QUESTION PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO WHEN MOST JUDGES SERVED THE FULL TERM BEFORE THEIR RETIREMENT ON THE BENCH AND THEN JUST RETIRED, DRAWING THEIR SALARY; BUT NOW WE ALLOW JUDGES TO RETIRE AND ACTUALLY GO BACK INTO PRACTICE. WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS? HOW LONG ARE YOU COMMITTED TO BEING ON THE BENCH?
A     WELL, AGAIN, I THINK THIS GETS BACK TO THE WOMEN THING. I HAVE NEVER REALLY THOUGHT OF MAPPING OUT MY CAREER, AND PEOPLE ASSUME THAT BECAUSE I WAS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE FOR FOUR YEARS, AND BECAUSE I'VE BEEN A CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR SIX YEARS, AND NOW BECAUSE I AM RUNNING FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT I HAVE SOME LONG-RANGE PLAN TO BE ON THE SUPREME COURT, AND, YOU KNOW, MAPPED---
Q     YES.
A     BUT, I MEAN, I REALLY DON'T DO THAT. I MEAN, WHEN I RAN FOR THE FAMILY COURT, I ONLY THOUGHT IN TERMS OF THE FAMILY COURT. AFTER FOUR YEARS IN THE FAMILY COURT, THE SUBJECT MATTER HAD BECOME, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER, AND I THOUGHT IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO BE A CIRCUIT JUDGE AND HEAR A LOT OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CASES. AND WHEN I BECAME A CIRCUIT JUDGE, I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR SIX YEARS AND I THOUGHT WHEN THE APPELLATE JUDGESHIP OPENED UP, I THOUGHT I HAD EXPERIENCE ON BOTH COURTS, I HAVE ENJOYED NOVEL ISSUES, I HAVE ENDED UP HEARING A FAIR NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH THERE WERE NOVEL ISSUES, AND IT WAS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY. I REALLY HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AFTER I RETIRE. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME, AFTER I RETIRE, OR?
Q     I GUESS SO, AND I GUESS MAINLY FROM A PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS A REAL PHILOSOPHICAL DECISION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO ALLOW JUDGES TO RETIRE AND THEN PRACTICE LAW. THAT WAS A NOVEL APPROACH IN SOUTH CAROLINA. IT WAS ALWAYS CONSIDERED THAT JUDGES WOULD MORE OR LESS EITHER DIE AT THE BENCH, OR THEY WOULD GO HOME AND FARM, OR WHATEVER, AND NOW WE ARE TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE CONTEMPLATING THAT JUDGES MAY SERVE FOR A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY ARE BACK OUT AMONGST OTHER ATTORNEYS TRYING CASES.
A     WELL, ONE THING THAT I HAVE REALLY ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS THAT I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT THE CLINICS PROGRAM AT THE LAW SCHOOL IS NOT NEARLY AS INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY AS IT SHOULD BE. AND I HATE TO SAY THIS BECAUSE ROY STUCKIE OVER THERE WILL THINK THAT I'M OUT TO GET HIS JOB IN 10 YEARS, AND THAT'S NOT TRUE; BUT I'VE ALWAYS--IT'S ALWAYS INTRIGUED ME BECAUSE I DID SPEND--I SPENT A YEAR IN TEXAS AND I WORKED AT LEGAL SERVICES OUT THERE; AND THE LEGAL SERVICES OFFICE OUT THERE, THE LAW SCHOOL IS VERY INVOLVED WITH LEGAL SERVICES IN TERMS OF UNCONTESTED DIVORCES, AND VERY INVOLVED--THE LAW SCHOOL IS MUCH MORE INVOLVED IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY THAN IT IS HERE, AND I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT IN THE BACK OF MY MIND THAT MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING THING TO DO, IS TO GO WORK IN THE CLINICS PROGRAM IN THE LAW SCHOOL, AND SINCE I WOULD HAVE HAD THE ROOTS IN THE COMMUNITY BY THEN TO BE ABLE TO LET LAWYERS WHO ARE THIRD-YEAR LAW STUDENTS COME AND MAYBE GET MORE EXPERIENCE ACTUALLY IN THE COURTROOM. THAT'S JUST KIND OF BEEN IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, BUT THAT IS AS FAR AS I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
Q     IN THE AREA OF WORK HABITS AND ATTITUDES AND MEETING DEADLINES AND YOUR SELF-DISCIPLINE, HOW DO YOU VIEW YOUR PAST SERVICE ON THE COURT?
A     YOU KNOW, COURT ADMINISTRATION EVERY MONTH MAKES US TURN IN A LIST OF CASES THAT WE HAVE UNDER ADVISEMENT AND THAT'S THE--THE HARDEST PART IS THAT IF A JUDGE HAS A NON-JURY WEEK OR IF I HAVE A NON-JURY WEEK IN RICHLAND, THEY TEND TO BE A NUMBER OF MOTIONS A LOT OF TIMES, AND I HAVE NUMBERS OF APPEALS FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SOMETHING WHERE THEY ARE REALLY THICK TRANSCRIPTS, AND THEN THE NEXT WEEK I HAVE CRIMINAL COURT, AND THEN IT MIGHT BE SEVERAL WEEKS UNTIL I HAVE A CHAMBERS WEEK; I MEAN, THAT USUALLY IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE IS JUST REALLY NOT A LOT OF TIME TO GO IN AN OFFICE AND SHUT A DOOR AFTER I FINISH COURT AT NIGHT, OR I'M TOO TIRED, OR I'VE DRIVEN FROM, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN WE WERE TRAVELING, I'VE COMMUTED FROM SOMEWHERE; I MEAN, I FEEL I AM REAL CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT THAT DEADLINE, AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE EVER HAD CASES UNDER ADVISEMENT MORE THAN 30 OR 60 DAYS, BUT I THINK I HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB IN TERMS OF BEING CONSCIENTIOUS AND NOT SITTING ON RULINGS.
Q     RIGHT.
A     I HAVE HAD SOME CONTROVERSIAL RULINGS WHERE THE PRESS HAS BEEN CALLING EVERY 15 OR 20 MINUTES, AND THAT KEEPS YOU ON YOUR TOES AND MAKES YOU DO YOUR WORK AND GET AN ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMPLAINTS FROM ATTORNEYS ABOUT COURT LASTING TOO LONG, OR CONVERSELY TOO SHORT?
A     NO.
Q     I MEAN THE WORKDAY NOT BEING APPROPRIATE?
A     NOW WE'VE GOTTEN SOME GUIDANCE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE ON THAT, THAT WE SHOULDN'T START COURT BEFORE 9:00 OR STAY LATER THAN 6:00, AND I HAVE USUALLY STAYED WITHIN THAT RANGE, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE JURIES INVOLVED.
Q     IN THE AREA OF LEGAL WRITING AND CONTRIBUTING TO C.L.E.'S OR J.C.L.E.'S, CAN YOU TELL THE COMMITTEE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE OR WHAT YOU'VE DONE LATELY IN THAT AREA?
A     WELL, I HAVE SPOKEN, YOU KNOW, I LISTED ON MY PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE THE NUMBERS OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, THAT I HAVE GIVEN SPEECHES, AND ALL THE ONES--MOST OF THE ONES--UNLESS IT WAS A PANEL DISCUSSION, MOST OF THE ONES THAT ARE BAR C.L.E., I HAVE HAD TO PREPARE MATERIALS FOR. ALSO, THE ONES--SOME OF THE OTHER ONES, THE AUTO TORT SEMINARS, I SPOKE TWICE AT THAT IN ATLANTA AND I HAD TO PREPARE AN OUTLINE FOR THAT BOTH TIMES. ALSO, OFTENTIMES I GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS WRITING MY OWN ORDERS IN NON-JURY CASES, AND, SO, I HAVE HAD A GOOD DEAL OF EXPERIENCE IN NON-JURY CASES. AND OBVIOUSLY WE GET DETAILED BRIEFS IN COMPLICATED CASES FROM THE LAWYERS ON BOTH SIDES AND PROPOSED ORDERS AND IT'S A MATTER OF KIND OF PUTTING TOGETHER ORDERS AND PASTING AND CUTTING AND PUTTING SOME OF MY OWN INPUT IN THERE, TOO; SO, I FEEL LIKE I HAVE HAD THAT BACKGROUND. I WAS AN ENGLISH MAJOR IN COLLEGE AND I HAVE ALWAYS HAD A PRETTY GOOD STRENGTH, I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WRITE WELL.
Q     DO YOU LIKE TO WRITE?
A     I LIKE TO WRITE.
Q     SOMETIMES YOU THINK OF TRIAL LAWYERS AS BEING THOSE FOLKS THAT REALLY DON'T LIKE TO WRITE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS AND RATHER LIKE TO DEAL IN A COURTROOM IN MOTIONS OR DEALING WITH PEOPLE; AND THEN YOU THINK OF FOLKS THAT LIKE TO DO APPELLATE WORK AND NEVER WANT TO GO IN THE COURTROOM. WHERE DO YOU FIT IN ON THAT SPECTRUM?
A     IF YOU HAD ASKED ME THAT IN LAW SCHOOL, I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT I NEVER WOULD HAVE WANTED TO DO APPELLATE WORK. IT'S SORT OF BEEN A PROGRESSION. I FEEL LIKE I--I DEFINITELY AM A PEOPLE PERSON, AND I LIKE PEOPLE AND I LIKE BEING AROUND PEOPLE, BUT IT'S JUST BEEN A PROGRESSION OF HAVING WORKED ON THE FAMILY COURT, HAVING WORKED ON THE CIRCUIT COURT, I FEEL LIKE I HAVE DEVELOPED AN ABILITY TO HEAR BOTH SIDES, TO TRY TO START HEARING ONE SIDE, AND AS I START HEARING AN ARGUMENT, START FORMULATING IN MY MIND WHAT ABOUT THIS, AND ASKING QUESTIONS, AND BEING ABLE TO KIND OF GET DOWN TO WHAT WE CALL THE BOTTOM LINE IN ISSUES, AND IT'S SORT OF AN EXPERTISE THAT I MYSELF HAVE BEEN SURPRISED AT THAT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE, AND I FEEL LIKE I DO HAVE A KNACK FOR KIND OF GETTING TO THE BOTTOM LINE IN ISSUES, AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVE HAD LAWYERS TELL ME THAT BEFORE, THAT I CAN HEAR COMPLICATED CASES AND KIND OF GET RIGHT TO THE MEAT OF WHAT THE ISSUE IS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY WELL; AND I DO THINK I HAVE THAT KNACK. AND IT DOES WORRY ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BEING ON THE COURT OF APPEALS; I MEAN, I HEAR JUDGES SAY THAT IT'S A LOT MORE LONELY THAN BEING ON THE CIRCUIT BENCH, AND YOU DON'T HAVE LAWYERS IN AND OUT LIKE YOU DID ON THE CIRCUIT BENCH, AND THAT WORRIES ME A LITTLE BIT, THAT MIGHT BE LONELY.
Q     JUDGE, YOU MENTIONED AWHILE AGO ABOUT THE EVER PRESENT DEADLINE CAUSED BY COURT ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT SOMETIMES THEIR VIEW IS QUANTITY, CERTAINLY NOT REJECTING QUALITY AS A NOTION, BUT EVERYTHING IS NUMBERS. WE TALKED AT THE LAST SCREENING WITH JUDGE HOWELL AND WITH JUDGE SHAW AND JUDGE GARDNER ABOUT RECENT ORDERS FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT HAVE AFFECTED THE WAY THINGS ARE HANDLED AT THE COURT OF APPEALS; AND PARTICULARLY THE COURT HAS CHANGED THE PROCESS BY WHICH APPEALS ARE SLOTTED TO ONE JUDGE, AS OPPOSED TO HOW THEY USED TO BE GIVEN TO A PANEL OF THREE, AND THE OPINION WAS NEVER ASSIGNED UNTIL THE MATTER HAD ACTUALLY BEEN HEARD AT ORAL ARGUMENT. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THAT CHANGE?
A     I MEAN, I AM VAGUELY AWARE THAT THE SUPREME COURT PRE-ASSIGNS AND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT IN THE PAST DID NOT PRE-ASSIGN. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A GREAT LUXURY NOT TO HAVE TO PRE-ASSIGN CASES AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT IF EVERY JUDGE WHO HEARD EVERYTHING COULD READ EVERY TRIAL BRIEF AND EVERY LAW CLERK ON THE BENCH DO A BENCH MEMO ON EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT CAME IN. I MEAN, I GUESS TO SOME EXTENT, AND I MEAN, I CERTAINLY KNOW I FACE IT WHEN I HOLD NON-JURY COURT HERE--TO SOME EXTENT WE ARE ALL BOUND BY THE CONSTRAINTS OF TIME AND THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE NUMBERS OF CASES THAT ARE COMING INTO THE SYSTEM, AND WE HAVE GOT TO WORK WITHIN CERTAIN BOUNDS. I REALLY THINK THAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND FOR WHOEVER THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS, AND AS AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, I WOULD CERTAINLY DO WHATEVER, AND TRY TO DO THE BEST I COULD AT WHATEVER DECISION SOMEBODY HIGHER THAN ME TOLD ME TO DO.
Q     I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION. YOU ARE CERTAINLY HERE TODAY--YOU NOT HERE AS A CANDIDATE FOR CHIEF JUDGE OR CHIEF JUSTICE, AND THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE; BUT JUST TO TRY TO GIVE THIS COMMITTEE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU WOULD BE ATTUNED TO IN TERMS OF THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, YOU KNOW, TRIAL COURT, EVERYONE, WHILE NOT EXPECTING MISTAKES TO BE MADE, REALIZE THAT THEY COULD BE MADE; AND APPELLATE COURTS ARE COURTS OF LAST RESORT IN THE SENSE THAT ERRORS WOULD BE CORRECTED. IF SOMETHING IS ASSIGNED TO ONE JUDGE AND ONE JUDGE TAKES ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY, DON'T YOU FEEL THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE LIKELY THAT ERROR WILL NOT BE CORRECTED THAN IF THREE JUDGES WERE TO---
A     I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER--I MEAN, BECAUSE A CASE IS ASSIGNED TO ONE JUDGE, I DON'T THINK THAT MEANS THE OTHER JUDGES CAN'T READ EVERYTHING AND STILL MAKE A DECISION. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S MORE OF WHICH JUDGE WRITES THE OPINION AND WHETHER YOU KNOW AT THE TIME YOU HEAR THE CASE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE JUDGE RESPONSIBLE FOR WRITING IT. NOW I GUESS THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGE, WHETHER THAT WOULD TEND TO MAKE YOU MORE LAX OR NOT.
Q     BUT, JUDGE, ISN'T THAT THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND PRE-ALIGNING?
A     WELL, YOU KNOW THAT YOUR LAW CLERK IS GOING TO BE THE ONE ACTUALLY WRITING THE OPINION, UNLESS YOU DECIDE TO DISSENT.
Q     BUT ISN'T IT INTENDED TO TAKE THE BURDEN OF WORK OFF THE OTHER TWO SO THAT THEY CAN---
A     I MEAN, I WOULD ASSUME SO. I DON'T REALLY--SINCE I HAVEN'T SERVED ON EITHER COURT, I MEAN, I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE PHILOSOPHICAL INS AND OUTS OF WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE THE ONE THAT IS ASSIGNED TO DO IT. I MEAN, IN CIRCUIT COURT, I AM ALWAYS THE ONE THAT HAS TO DO IT. WHEN I HEAR THE ARGUMENT, I REALIZE THAT I'VE GOT TO---
Q     I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU IN TOO UNCOMFORTABLE OF AN AREA, BUT---
A     WELL, I THINK IT'S A GREAT LUXURY FOR THREE PEOPLE TO NOT KNOW AHEAD; BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A DECISION THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE BY SOMEBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION HIGHER THAN I AM, AND WHATEVER DECISION WAS MADE, I MEAN, I WOULD ABIDE BY. BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD MEAN NECESSARILY THAT IF I WEREN'T WRITING THE OPINION THAT I WOULDN'T--AND I HAVE HEARD LAWYERS COMPLAIN, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE GONE BEFORE THEM AND THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE ALL THE JUDGES WHO ARE HEARING THE APPEAL HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND ALL OF THEM HAVE READ IT, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT I WOULD BE A JUDGE THAT, WHETHER IT WAS MY CASE OR NOT, I WOULD HAVE READ EVERYTHING AND WOULD HAVE--BE JUST AS PREPARED OR JUST AS INTERESTED IN THE ISSUES.
Q     RIGHT, I---
A     AND FEEL JUST AS MUCH RESPONSIBILITY TO THE LITIGANTS AND TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE YOU'RE CREATING POLICY A LOT MORE THAN YOU ARE JUST ON ONE CASE ON THE CIRCUIT BENCH. I MEAN THE CASE IS A PRECEDENT AND IT'S A LOT MORE POLICY ORIENTED; SO IT'S GOING TO MAKE A BIGGER DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW.
Q     SO IN SPITE OF THE RULE, THAT WOULD BE YOUR APPROACH?
A     I WOULD TRY TO DO THAT, CERTAINLY.
Q     JUDGE, IN THE AREA OF DISSENTS, AND NOW THAT YOU ARE ON THE APPELLATE BENCH, IT GETS TO BE IMPORTANT, NOT ONLY FOR THE LITIGANTS BEFORE YOU, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR EVERYONE COMING DOWN THE LINE AS TO WHAT YOU WRITE AND WHAT YOU SAY, AND HOW MUCH AGREEMENT THERE IS AMONG THE JUDGES. WHAT IS GOING TO BE YOUR TEST FOR WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO DISSENT? HOW IMPORTANT DO YOUR FEELINGS HAVE TO BE?
A     WELL, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, AS I READ OVER APPELLATE DISSENTS, SOME SEEM THAT THEY JUST--REALLY THE END RESULT IS THE SAME BUT THEY DISAGREE WITH THE METHODOLOGY, AND I GUESS THAT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW PRECEDENT-SETTING THAT WAS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT WERE A METHODOLOGY THAT WAS GOING TO BE PRECEDENT-SETTING IN OTHER CASES, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMPELLED TO WRITE A DISSENT EVEN IF I AGREED WITH THE RESULT. I THINK IF I DISAGREED WITH THE RESULT, THEN I WOULD CERTAINLY FEEL COMPELLED IN EVERY CASE, IF I DISAGREED WITH WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN LIGHT OF OTHER PRECEDENTS IN OTHER CASES, IF I FELT LIKE THE WRONG RESULT HAD BEEN REACHED, THEN I WOULD FEEL COMPELLED TO WRITE DISSENTS.
Q     HOW ABOUT CONCURRING OPINIONS?
A     AGAIN, I THINK, YOU KNOW--(PAUSE)--ABOUT THE SAME THING. I MEAN, I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE JUDGE AND HOW IMPORTANT THEY WERE BASED ON PRECEDENT. IF I READ THE PRECEDENT AND I FELT LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE RIGHT, BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S A DIFFERENT REASON AND I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO OUTLINE A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT FUTURE CASES AND AFFECT HOW OUR RULING IS GOING TO GO, WHICH BRANCH OF THE TREE IT'S GOING OFF OF IN FUTURE CASES, THEN I WOULD FEEL COMPELLED TO WRITE A RATIONAL ANALYSIS.
Q     JUMPING TO THE AREA OF HEALTH, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE COVERED THAT AREA. ARE THERE ANY PROBLEMS, ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE COMMITTEE TO KNOW ABOUT, OR?
A     NO. I TAKE ALLERGY SHOTS ONCE A WEEK, AND I PUT THAT ON THERE.
Q     JUDGE, YOU HEARD ME ASK MRS. SEAGARS-ANDREWS, AND ALSO MR. WHIPPER, ABOUT CONFLICTS WITH DOMESTIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT THEIR SERVICES, AND THAT'S, AS I SAID, NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GENDER-RELATED, AND I DO NOT INTEND IT TO BE, BUT I DO NOTE THAT YOU HAVE CHILDREN. HOW DO YOU INTEND TO HANDLE THAT WITH YOUR SERVICE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS IF ELECTED?
A     WELL, MY HUSBAND HAS ALWAYS LIKED TO SAY, "I'D RATHER BE LUCKY THAN GOOD." WE HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY FORTUNATE AND WE HAVE A BAPTIST PREACHER'S WIFE WHO HAS BEEN WITH US FOR FIVE YEARS WHO NEVER HAD CHILDREN OF HER OWN AND FEELS THAT THIS IS GOD'S WAY OF GIVING HER CHILDREN BY GIVING HER OUR CHILDREN. AND SHE--WE GET INTO ARGUMENTS ON MONDAYS OVER WHICH NIGHTS SHE GETS TO TAKE THEM HOME DURING THE WEEK; AND, SO, WE ARE VERY BLESSED TO HAVE THAT. AND WE ARE VERY BLESSED TO HAVE PARENTS, MY PARENTS, WHO ARE MOVING TO COLUMBIA AND WHO WOULD JUST AS SOON HAVE THE KIDS AS NOT HAVE THEM. I MEAN, THEY WANT THEM AS MUCH AS THEY CAN GET THEM, TOO. SO IN MY HOUSE A LOT OF THE TIME WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT IS WHETHER MERLE GETS TO TAKE THEM HOME, OR WHETHER THEY GET TO GO WITH GRANDMAMA AND GRADDADDY. LAST NIGHT ONE WENT WITH EACH. ONE WENT WITH THE BABYSITTER AND ONE WENT WITH MAMA AND DADDY, BUT I'VE JUST BEEN REAL FORTUNATE IN TERMS OF RELATIVES AND CHILD CARE TO HAVE WONDERFUL CHILD CARE. AND MY BABYSITTER DRIVES; AND I HAVE A 14-YEAR-OLD WHO LIVES WITH US, TOO, AND HE PINCH-HITS WHEN HE HAS TO, WHICH IS OFTEN. (PAUSE.) GRUDGINGLY, AND WANTS TO GET PAID FOR IT.
Q     JUDGE, YOU NORMALLY THINK OF A JUDGE ELEVATING OR MOVING TO BE ELEVATED FROM THE TRIAL BENCH TO THE APPELLATE, IT SEEMS THAT ONE OF THE THOUGHTS THEY HAVE ON THEIR MIND IS THAT I WANT TO AFFECT PUBLIC POLICY MORE, AND I HAVE NOT HEARD YOU SAY THAT YET, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO PRESUME THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU--YOU ARE GOING BECAUSE YOUR EFFECT GETS TO BE EXPONENTIAL, RATHER THAN JUST THE CASE BEFORE YOU, YOU ARE AFFECTING LOTS OF CASES. HOW WILL THAT IMPACT YOUR DECISIONS? I CERTAINLY KNOW YOU ARE NOT GOING WITH A PRE-SET AGENDA, BUT HOW WILL THAT AFFECT YOUR DECISIONS? WILL THEY BE THE SAME DECISIONS YOU WOULD MAKE AS A TRIAL JUDGE?
A     NO, I THINK IT'S JUST LIKE YOU POINTED OUT EARLIER; I MEAN, A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE TO SHOOT FROM THE HIP IN TRIAL BECAUSE, I MEAN, IT'S RIGHT THEN AND THERE, ESPECIALLY ON QUESTIONS OF HEARSAY, AND A LOT OF TIMES EVEN ON STICKY LEGAL ISSUES IF WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN PRE-TRIAL BRIEFS AHEAD OF TIME AND THE JURY IS SITTING BACK THERE, I DON'T USUALLY SEND THE JURY HOME AND SAY COME BACK IN TWO HOURS AND I'M GOING TO RESEARCH THIS ISSUE AND LET YOU KNOW; SO, A LOT OF TIMES, I AM COMPELLED TO RULE ON THE SPOT AND HOPE THAT MY GUT IS RIGHT MORE OFTEN THAN IT'S WRONG. YOU KNOW, I THINK FROM THE APPELLATE LEVEL THAT THERE'S JUST THAT MUCH MORE RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE PRECEDENT-SETTING, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT, HOPEFULLY, I AM DOING THE RIGHT THING.
Q     AND, FINALLY, IN THE AREA OF THE BAR AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS PROCESS, IF YOU COULD SUPPLY THE COMMITTEE A LIST OF THOSE FOLKS THAT YOU SUPPLIED TO THE BAR; I ASSUME THAT YOU GAVE THEM THE SAME NAMES THAT WERE ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, PLUS---
A     NO, I THINK THEY ASKED FOR--YES, I THINK---
Q     ---PLUS ADDITIONAL NAMES.
A     YES, THEY ASKED FOR FIVE.
Q     IF YOU COULD GIVE THOSE TO MRS. SATTERWHITE AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
A     I WOULD BE GLAD TO.
Q     DID THEY SPEND MUCH TIME WITH YOU WHEN THEY CAME TO TALK?
A     THEY SPENT AN HOUR. I WENT TO A LAW OFFICE AT 8:00 A.M. ONE MORNING, AND I WAS THERE FOR AN HOUR. AND ACTUALLY THE NEXT CANDIDATE, ANOTHER CANDIDATE WAS WAITING IN THE LOBBY TO COME IN RIGHT AFTER ME WHEN I LEFT.
Q     I FORGOT ONE QUESTION, JUDGE, AND I APOLOGIZE.
A     SURE.
Q     ONE OTHER MATTER THAT WE CHECKED INTO WAS REPORTS ON LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE FORMS OF EXPENDITURES MADE ON BEHALF OF JUDGES, AND JUST TO REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE, NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING IMPROPER ABOUT IT, EXPENDITURES WERE MADE FOR JUDGE CONNOR BY DR. PALMS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, MRS. CORETTA BEDSOLE AT THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, AND MR. LLOYD HENDRIX FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA BANKERS ASSOCIATION. THOSE WERE FOR LUNCHES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE $8.54 EXPENDITURE WAS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
A     I CAN'T IMAGINE, UNLESS THERE WAS A RECEPTION THAT I WENT TO AND I SIGNED IN. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT IS.
Q     THAT'S JUST TO MAKE THE RECORD COMPLETE.
A     MY HUSBAND IS A LOBBYIST AND I THINK THOSE OTHER TWO TIMES WERE WHEN WE HAPPENED TO GO TO LUNCH AT A PLACE THAT DIDN'T TAKE CASH AND THEY HAPPENED TO SIGN A TICKET.
MR. COUICK: THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS?
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR MOORE, AND THEN REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     JUDGE, I WILL ASK SOME OF THE SAME QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED ALL ALONG. HOW MANY INTERVIEWERS WERE INVOLVED IN YOUR BAR?
A     THREE.
Q     THREE; DID THEY TELL YOU OR ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHICH BARS OR WHICH GEOGRAPHICAL---
A     I KNEW TWO OF THEM. THERE WAS A MAN FROM GREENVILLE THAT I KNEW THAT WAS IN LAW SCHOOL ABOUT THE SAME I WAS; AND THEN ONE FROM RICHLAND. AND THEN I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A WOMAN FROM ROCK HILL WHO IS A LAWYER IN A PLAINTIFFS DEFENSE FIRM UP THERE, AND I DID NOT KNOW HER PREVIOUSLY TO THAT DAY. I MET HER FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT DAY.
Q     WERE YOU GIVEN ANY OR MADE AWARE OF THE PROJECTED PUBLIC RELEASE OF THE FINDINGS?
A     ONLY LIKE YESTERDAY, I GOT A LETTER. I THINK WHAT HAPPENED, THERE WAS A DAY THAT THEY HAD SENT US A POSTCARD SAYING TO LET US KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO RELEASE OUR--WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR RATING IS ON, I THINK, IT WAS A WEDNESDAY, LIKE LAST WEDNESDAY OR THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE; LET US KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN YOUR OFFICE OR IN THE LOBBY. AND WE HAVE HEARD SOME OTHER CANDIDATES REFER TO THEY CAME UP HERE AND DELIVERED LETTERS AND STUFF. THEY HAD SENT US A LITTLE POSTCARD SAYING, "LET US KNOW WHERE YOU ARE. WE ARE GOING TO COME AND TELL YOU WHAT YOUR RATING IS. WE WILL LET YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR RATING WAS." AND IT SAID, "WHERE WILL YOU BE BETWEEN 11:00 AND 1:00?" AND I HADN'T GONE TO LUNCH, AND I HAD SAT BY THE PHONE AND IT GOT TO BE ABOUT 3:30 THAT AFTERNOON AND I WAS OVER HOLDING COURT, AND I HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING, AND I CALLED AND THEY SAID, "WELL, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THEM ALL. WE WILL LET YOU KNOW SOMETHING MORE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO EVERYBODY YET." AND THEN THEY SAID, "WE'LL LET YOU KNOW SOMETHING BY THE END OF THE WEEK." AND THEN, I THINK, ON FRIDAY I GOT A PHONE CALL SAYING THAT I WOULD GET A LETTER IN THE MAIL, AND I GOT A LETTER IN THE MAIL, I THINK, MAYBE TUESDAY, MONDAY OR TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK. TUESDAY, I THINK. AND IT SAID THIS IS YOUR RATING AND WE ARE GOING TO REPORT TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY THE 27TH, AND WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT PUBLIC ON THE 29TH, AND THAT LETTER HAD THAT WRITTEN IN IT.
Q     I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SCREEN YOU PRIOR TO THAT REPORT, TO THAT RELEASE?
A     TO WHICH RELEASE?
Q     THE BAR'S RELEASE OF YOUR RATING.
A     WELL, I ASSUME THEY MEANT--WHEN THEY CAME IN HERE THIS MORNING AND SAID IT WITH REPORTERS SITTING HERE, I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT I ASSUME THEY MEANT.
Q     SO NO MENTION WAS MADE THAT THE SCREENING COMMITTEE SHOULD PROCEED PRIOR TO US RELEASING THIS, THE TWO WAS NEVER---
A     I MEAN, I'LL BE GLAD TO--I DON'T THINK I HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER WITH ME, BUT I'LL BE GLAD TO GIVE YOU-- BASICALLY WHAT I ASSUMED IT SAID, KNOWING THAT MY SCREENING WAS TODAY, WHEN THEY SAID, "ON TUESDAY, WE ARE GOING TO GIVE A COPY TO THE COMMITTEE, AND IT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC ON THURSDAY," I ASSUMED THEY MEANT THEY WERE GOING TO COME IN WITH THE REPORTERS SITTING HERE AND SAY IT TO Y'ALL ON THURSDAY, AND THAT EVERYBODY WOULD HEAR IT.
Q     WELL, AND BEARING IN MIND WHAT THE LAW THAT WE ARE TRYING TO OPERATE UNDER,---
A     SURE.
Q     ---WHICH IS THE LAW, I QUESTION WHETHER THAT MEANT ANYTHING TO SOME, BUT BEARING IN MIND, THAT THE BAR HAS CONDITIONED THEIR REPORT WITH THIS CONFIDENTIALITY REQUEST IN EXECUTIVE SESSION; YOU HEARD THAT EXCHANGE THIS MORNING?
A     YES, I HEARD THAT EXCHANGE THIS MORNING.
Q     AND, FURTHER, GIVEN THAT THEY HAD THREE DEGREES OF FINDINGS; IT STARTED OUT AS FOUR, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT ENDED UP THREE: QUALIFIED; WHAT DID IT SAY? - HIGHLY QUALIFIED, QUALIFIED, AND NOT QUALIFIED, DID THEY TELL YOU THAT?
A     I THINK I CALLED THE BAR AND ASKED FOR A COPY OF THE RULES, OR CALLED--I DON'T REMEMBER. I ASKED THE SECRETARY TO GET ME A COPY OF THE RULES; FRANKLY, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE SHE GOT THEM. AND I READ THE RULES BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS COMING WHEN THEY WERE INTERVIEWING ME AND WHAT KINDS OF THINGS THEY WERE GOING TO ASK, AND THAT KIND OF THING.
Q     IN THE INTERVIEW, DID THEY TELL YOU THAT THERE WOULD BE THREE CATEGORIES OR THREE RATINGS?
A     WELL, I MEAN, I KNEW THAT BECAUSE I HAD READ THE RULES. THEY HAVE PUBLISHED RULES OR SOMETHING ON THAT.
Q     AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THAT I WAS TYING TO FIND OUT---
A     YES, I KNEW.
Q     ---BECAUSE INITIALLY I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE FOUR CATEGORIES, AND THEN IT WAS REDUCED TO THREE. WERE YOU MADE AWARE OF THAT?
A     I DON'T THINK ANYBODY EVER TOLD ME THAT. I THINK THAT IT'S IN THE RULES AND THEN I THINK I GOT A COPY OF SOME AMENDED RULES AFTER THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS OR SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND I PROBABLY ASKED FOR THEM, BECAUSE I MEAN I THINK I HEARD OVER HERE IN THE LOBBY OR SOMETHING THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, AND I SAID, "ARE Y'ALL GOING TO CHANGE THE RULES?" AND THEN I ASKED FOR A COPY IF THEY CHANGED THE RULES BECAUSE I WANTED TO KIND OF KNOW WHAT THE RULES WERE.
Q     IN LIGHT OF THAT, LET ME ASK THIS THEN, AND I ADMIT THAT THIS IS A HIGH DEGREE OF SUPPOSITION ON MY PART, AND I REALIZE YOU RECEIVED A WELL-QUALIFIED, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT, IN FACT, IF YOU HAD RECEIVED A "QUALIFIED," OR WORSE AN "UNQUALIFIED," AND YOU WERE NOT--WOULD YOU NOT BE PERTURBED THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT OR ASK QUESTIONS OR HEAR ANSWERS AS TO WHY YOU RECEIVED THAT?
A     WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY CAME TO US THAT--I MEAN, THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS, THEY WERE GOING TO COME TO US AND GIVE US A CHANCE TO REFUTE ANY ALLEGATIONS. I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT THAT FROM THE RULES. I GUESS THAT IS IN THE RULES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO THAT, OR SOMEBODY TOLD ME THAT, OR SOMETHING, THAT THEY WERE GOING TO COME AND THEN--AND, I MEAN, THEY DID, THEY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, "WE HAD SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT YOUR PUNCTUALITY. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT?" I MEAN, THEY ASKED ME ABOUT THAT MORNING.
Q     WELL, HAD THEY NOT COME BACK TO YOU, JUDGE, OR EVEN IF THEY DID AND THEY MADE THAT REPORT TO THIS COMMITTEE, WOULD YOU NOT FEEL SLIGHTED OR SOMEWHAT UNEASY ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THIS COMMITTEE TO REFUTE THOSE POINTS?
A     I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND BOTH POINTS OF VIEW. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND HOW LAWYERS IN RICHLAND COUNTY, KNOWING THAT I AM THE CIRCUIT JUDGE AND I'M GOING TO BE SITTING HERE, AREN'T GOING TO COME FORWARD AND TELL--KNOWING THAT EITHER I'M GOING TO BE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS OR I'M VERY LIKELY STILL GOING TO BE A CIRCUIT JUDGE IN RICHLAND, AREN'T GOING TO COME FORWARD; AND I THINK IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE A SITTING JUDGE, I THINK IT'S WORSE THAN A SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE NOT, BECAUSE, I MEAN, PEOPLE JUST AREN'T GOING TO BE HONEST TO ME IF THEY KNOW I AM GOING TO BE THE JUDGE AND THEIR NAMES ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN OUT. BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND AND I THINK Y'ALL'S POINT IS WELL TAKEN THAT YOU DON'T GET TO KNOW WHO SAID WHAT, AND YOU DON'T GET A CHANCE TO REFUTE IT, YOU DON'T GET TO BRING YOUR OWN EVIDENCE IN. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES OF THAT DEBATE, AND, FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE PROCESS UP TO Y'ALL, AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER Y'ALL TELL ME TO DO, I'LL--(PAUSE)--I'LL---
Q     AGAIN, YOU HAVE RECEIVED A WELL-QUALIFIED, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO JEOPARDIZE---
A     IF I HAD GOTTEN AN "UNQUALIFIED," YES, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY, I WOULD LIKED TO HAVE KNOWN WHY AND BEEN ABLE TO---
Q     AND WHAT I HAVE HEARD ABOUT YOU, AS FAR AS YOUR COURTROOM, YOU PRACTICE FAIRNESS DOCTRINES TO THE HILT. IF YOU PRACTICED THAT IN YOUR COURTROOM, SOME OF THE SAME FELLOWS--PEOPLE WHO ARE RATING, THEY WOULD NOT BE VERY HAPPY, WOULD THEY?
A     NO, I AGREE WITH THAT.
SENATOR MOORE: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     JUDGE CONNOR, THE TWO QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE, THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO APPELLATE EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAD WHILE YOU WERE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. I HAVE READ YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT MOST OF YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE WAS AT THE TRIAL LEVEL AND THAT YOU DIDN'T HANDLE APPEALS?
A     YES, THE COURT OF APPEALS--I MEAN, THE APPELLATE DEFENDERS OFFICE HAD BEEN CREATED WHEN I WAS A PUBLIC DEFENDER AND THEY HANDLED ALL THE APPEALS.
Q     DO YOU RECALL HOW MUCH APPELLATE EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE HAD?
A     I DIDN'T HAVE A LOT. AS I RECALL, I HAD ONE CASE THAT STARTED OUT ON APPEAL AND THE APPEAL ENDED UP BEING DROPPED BECAUSE THE CASE SETTLED AFTERWARD. I DON'T THINK I EVER WENT ALL THE WAY ON ANY APPEALS TO THE END.
Q     OKAY. HOW ABOUT, HAVE YOU SERVED AS AN ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, OR I KNOW THEY SOMETIMES DO THAT WITH CIRCUIT JUDGES, HAVE YOU SERVED ON THE COURT OF APPEALS OR THE SUPREME COURT IN ANY FASHION?
A     I SERVED ONE TIME ON THE SUPREME COURT.
Q     AS AN ACTING---
A     AS A--AND ACTUALLY IT WAS WHEN THE--IT WASN'T REALLY ON AN OPINION. IT WAS WHEN JUDGE LITTLEJOHN WANTED ME WHEN THERE WAS A--THE BAR MEMBERS WERE BEING SWORN IN. AND THEY HAD A LITTLE ARTICLE IN THE PAPER ABOUT ME BEING THE FIRST WOMAN SITTING ON THE SUPREME COURT. THAT WAS PRIOR TO JEAN, SO.
Q     IT HAD A NICE RING TO IT, DIDN'T IT?
A     YES.
Q     THE OTHER QUESTION, AND I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU IN PARTICULAR, BUT ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT I HEAR FROM THE BAR AND SOME OF THE JUDGES IS WITH ALL JUDICIAL CANDIDATES IS THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY SPEND DOWN HERE IN THE LOBBY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME RUMBLINGS, AND YOU HAVE PROBABLY HEARD THEM, TOO, FROM JUDGES ABOUT HOW THAT AFFECTS COURT SCHEDULING FOR OTHER JUDGES. HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED ANY OF THAT COMPLAINT FROM YOUR COLLEAGUES OR FROM MEMBERS OF THE BAR ABOUT HOW YOUR CANDIDACY MIGHT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO SERVE ON THE BENCH AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE?
A     WELL, I HAVEN'T CANCELED ANY COURT, NO COURT. NOW WE HAVE--I HAVE TAKEN TWO--WE GET FOUR WEEKS OF VACATION A YEAR. I HAVE TAKEN TWO OF MY WEEKS OF VACATION. I DON'T THINK IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS THAT I'VE SPENT TWO HOURS OVER HERE BECAUSE I HAD NON-JURY LAST WEEK AND I HAD CIVIL JURY THIS WEEK. SOME WEEKS I HAVE HAD CIVIL JURY WHERE I HAVE HAD LITTLE WRECKS AND THEY HAVE SETTLED, AND, YOU KNOW, THE LAWYERS FOR THE NEXT CASE AT 10:00; IF A CASE SETTLED AT 11:00 AND THEY COULDN'T GET HERE UNTIL 3:00, I'M LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE THREE BLOCKS AWAY AND I HAVE RUN OVER HERE, OR I HAVE RUN OVER HERE ON MY LUNCH HOURS, BUT I HAVE NOT CANCELED--IN THE WEEKS THAT I HAVE HAD CRIMINAL COURT, I HAVEN'T CANCELED ANY COURT AT ALL TO COME OVER HERE AND CAMPAIGN.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: YES, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:

Q     YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH BOTH SCREENING PROCESSES, ONE EARLIER BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. WOULD I PUT YOU ON THE SPOT IF I ASKED YOU TO EVALUATE THE SCREENING PROCESS THE BAR ASSOCIATION DID? IF WE ASSIGNED A SCORE OF 1 TO 10 WITH 10 BEING PERFECT, WOULD IT PUT YOU ON THE SPOT IF I ASKED YOU TO SCORE THEM ON THE PROCESS THEY USED FOR POTENTIAL CANDIDATES OF JUDGES?
A     YOU MEAN, WHAT I THINK ABOUT--
Q     THEIR PROCESS IN---
A     I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO--SEE, I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY INTERVIEWED. I DON'T KNOW. THEY DIDN'T TELL ME. I READ THE RULES AND IT SAID THEY WERE GOING TO TALK TO UP TO 30 PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T KNOW. NOBODY HAS EVER COME TO ME OTHER THAN THAT ONE JUDGE WHO JOKED IN THE HALL; I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THE 30 PEOPLE ARE THAT THEY TALKED TO; SO, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO EXACTLY KNOW WHAT THEY DID, OTHER THAN JUST LOOKING AT THEIR RULES. AND, I MEAN, I HEARD MR. JOHNSON THIS MORNING, AND I WAS LEARNING AS MUCH AS Y'ALL WERE THIS MORNING, TO HEAR HIM TALK ABOUT THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT--I DIDN'T KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE THREE CAME ALL BACK TOGETHER AND THEY ALL MET AND ALL DISCUSSED IT AS A WHOLE COMMITTEE. I MEAN, I DIDN'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT WHAT THEY HAD DONE UNTIL JUST LISTENING TO HIM THIS MORNING.
Q     DO YOU FEEL THE PROCESS WAS FAIR SO FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED?
A     (PAUSE.) I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I WAS IMPRESSED WITH, WHEN I HEARD "BAR," I WAS EXPECTING IT TO BE OLD MEMBERS OF THE BAR; I WAS EXPECTING IT TO BE PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE BAR ASSOCIATION FOR YEARS AND WERE KIND OF KNOWN AS "THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR." WHEN THE LIST OF THE COMMITTEE CAME OUT, I WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE VARIETY. THEY HAD WOMEN ON THE COMMITTEE. THEY HAD BLACKS ON THE COMMITTEE. THEY HAD--I MEAN, I WAS AMAZED AT THE VARIETY IN TERMS OF PEOPLE WHO DID CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE, CIVIL PLAINTIFFS, CIVIL DEFENDANTS; SO, I MEAN, I THINK THERE ARE SOME PLUSES TO WHAT THEY DID. AND, AGAIN, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE IT'S INPUT FOR Y'ALL. I THINK YOU ALL DO A MUCH MORE THOROUGH JOB IN TERMS OF WRAP SHEETS, ETHICAL VIOLATIONS; I MEAN, Y'ALL LOOK AT A WHOLE SPECTRUM OF THINGS IN HERE. I THINK THEY LOOK AT ONE AREA. AND I DON'T--IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I GUESS SOME OF THIS COMES FROM, YOU KNOW, HEARING MR. JOHNSON THIS MORNING, THAT THEY DON'T EXPECT Y'ALL TO RUBBER-STAMP WHAT THEY DID, THAT THEY'RE--THAT THIS IS JUST ONE THING THAT Y'ALL CAN CONSIDER IN THE WHOLE REALM OF THINGS THAT YOU ALL CAN LOOK AT THAT THEY HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT; AND, SO, FOR WHAT THEY DID, I MEAN, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS WRONG. BUT, AGAIN, I MEAN, IT'S LIKE SENATOR MOORE SAID, I MEAN, IF I HAD GOTTEN "NOT QUALIFIED" OR "UNQUALIFIED," I MEAN, I'M SURE I WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY. I MEAN, IT'S JUST HARD TO--AND, AGAIN, I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, AND I WASN'T THE PERSON SITTING THERE. I RESPECT MR. JOHNSON AND I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE--I HEARD HIM SAY THIS MORNING THAT I CAN TELL YOU THAT AS A COMMITTEE WE REALLY TRIED AND WE REALLY PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS, AND WE TRIED TO DO WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT; I MEAN, I BELIEVE THAT. I BELIEVE THOSE PEOPLE REALLY WENT IN THERE AND TRIED TO DO WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS RIGHT - GOOD, BAD, OR INDIFFERENT. AND WHATEVER WEIGHT Y'ALL WANT TO GIVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS UP TO Y'ALL; BUT, I MEAN, I SURE DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS DEBATE BETWEEN THE BAR AND THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE. I MEAN, Y'ALL CAN IGNORE IT, IT SUITS ME. (LAUGHTER.)
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: WE CAN TAKE CARE OF OURSELVES IN THAT---
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: I GUESS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)
CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     LET ME ASK YOU JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION: YOU SAID YOU GOT YOUR NOTICE ON TUESDAY. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY NOTICE OR INFORMATION ON THE RATINGS OF ANY OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES?
A     I DIDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA UNTIL I HEARD THEM THIS MORNING. I REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY INKLING OF WHAT ANYBODY ELSE WAS RATED. I HAD A REPORTER ACTUALLY CALL ME AT HOME LAST NIGHT, AND I JUST SAID, "LOOK, I'M NOT SURE IF I'M SUPPOSED TO RELEASE THIS OR NOT; I'D RATHER YOU TALK TO THE BAR," WHEN HE CALLED ME WANTING TO KNOW WHAT MY RATING WAS. IT WAS EITHER LAST NIGHT OR--I THINK IT WAS LAST NIGHT OR THE NIGHT BEFORE, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT --THE TOP OF THE LETTER SAID "CONFIDENTIAL," BUT I DIDN'T KNOW FROM THAT WHETHER THAT MEAN CONFIDENTIAL TO ME OR WHETHER THAT MEANT THAT I WASN'T SUPPOSED TO TELL ANYBODY. AND I JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, I WOULD RATHER YOU GET THAT FROM THE BAR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: SENATOR.

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     WHAT WAS THE QUESTION FROM THE REPORTER?
A     WHAT MY RATING WAS.
Q     HE SAID, "I UNDERSTAND YOU RECEIVED A WELL-QUALIFIED"?
A     NO, THEY DIDN'T KNOW. THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS.
SENATOR MOORE: OH, OKAY, VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, MA'AM. JUDGE CONNOR: OKAY, THANK Y'ALL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: DO Y'ALL WANT TO TAKE A BREAK OR DO YOU WANT TO MOVE RIGHT ON INTO THE NEXT ONE?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: LET'S GO ON.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, CALL NEXT BEN A. HAGOOD, JR. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
MR. HAGOOD: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: IF YOU WILL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. BEN A. HAGOOD, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOU, SIR, HAVE A SEAT; AND I NOTICE THIS IS YOUR FIRST SCREENING?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     AND HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, I HAVE.
Q     IS IT CORRECT? DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     IT APPEARS TO BE CORRECT.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION THEN TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT, IT SHALL BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Ben A. Hagood, Jr.
Home Address:                                     Business Address:
2256 I'On Avenue                             U. S. Attorney's Office
Sullivan's Island, SC 29482         P. O. Box 978

83 Broad Street

Charleston, SC 29402

2.     He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on October 23, 1957. He is presently 35 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married on June 9, 1984, to Penelope Read Lilly. He has two children: Derrill Taber, age 2, and Nancy Lilly, age 1.

5.     Military Service: U. S. Marine Corps; enlisted 1981; commissioned 1982; active duty 1984-1987; reserves 1987-1992; highest rank: Captain; Serial #248887930; present status: commission resigned; character of discharge: Honorable Discharge

6.     He attended the University of Virginia, College of Arts and Sciences, 1975 - December, 1978, awarded Bachelor of Arts with Distinction; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1980-1983, awarded Juris Doctor.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Regular seminars in Environmental Law and Civil and Criminal Trial Advocacy
From 1988-1993, he reported approximately 166 CLE hours.

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
Legal Writing Instructor, USC School of Law, 1982-1983
Lecturer, S. C. Bar Natural Resources Section Seminar
Panel Participant and Lecturer at several professional education seminars on Environmental Law

10.     Published Books or Articles:
Comment, 34 S.C.L. Rev. 59 (1982)

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1983-1984         Law Clerk, Randall T. Bell, S. C. Court of Appeals
1985                     Criminal Defense Counsel, U. S. Marine Corps
1986-1987         Prosecutor; Deputy Law Center Director, U. S. Marine Corps
1987-1990         Civil Litigation as Associate and Partner, Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee
1990-1991         Civil Litigation, Assistant U. S. Attorney
1991-1993         Criminal Prosecution, Assistant U. S. Attorney

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -     weekly, 1990-1993
State -             monthly, 1988-1990
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 49%
Criminal - 49%
Domestic - 2%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 90%
Non-jury - 10%     Usually sole counsel, chief counsel or co-chief counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)     U.S. v. 46.37 Acres of Land, U. S. District Court, not reported. Land condemnation case involving various expert witnesses.
(b)     U.S. v. Otto Witherspoon, et al., U. S. District Court, not reported, appeals pending. Prosecution of large-scale heroin distribution ring, involving over 30 defendants indicted. Trial lasted approximately 6 weeks and involved over 50 witnesses.
(c)     U.S. v. Michael C. Chase, U. S. District Court, not reported, appeal pending. Federal murder case involving complicated medical testimony. Defendant sentenced to life imprisonment.
(d)     U.S. v. Darrol Harrison, et al., U. S. District court, trial ongoing 3/23/93. prosecution of large-scale crack cocaine ring. Ten defendants on trial facing possible life sentences. Trial lasting over four weeks.
(e)     Amtron, Inc. v. Immunogenetics, Inc., S. C. Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, not reported. Complicated business contract dispute. Participated as associated counsel.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)     Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax Commission, et al. Briefed and argued case for Respondent Commonwealth II before S. C. Supreme Court. Not reported.
(b)     Amtron, Inc. v. Immunogenetics, Inc. Wrote brief. Case settled prior to argument.
(c)     Ballam v. Price. Associate counsel on brief. Case settled prior to argument.

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:
Several federal criminal appeals now pending. (See Question #17) No briefs filed to date.

22.     Public Office: No, other than current position as Assistant United States Attorney

33.     His health is excellent. His last full physical was done approximately 1990 at Charleston Naval Base (examining physician unknown). His family doctor is Dr. George Durst, Jr.
40.     Employment Other than Employment as a Judge by a Governmental Agency:
Intern, Office of South Carolina Lieutenant Governor, 1980. Responsibilities: Research and writing; supervisor: Melissa Burnette Consultant S. C. State Reorganization Commission 1980-1981; responsibilities: Research Assistant; supervisors: A. Baron Holmes, Phil Grose; Assistant U. S. Attorney, 1990-1993; responsibilities: trial attorney; supervisors: Michelle Ligon, Robert Jendron, John McIntosh

43.     Expenditures for candidacy:
$133.00 for stationary (12/92)
Approximately $20.00 on stamps (12/92 - 2/93)

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association - Chairman, Natural Resources Section, 1992-1993; Charleston County Bar Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Senior Warden, St. Philips Episcopal Church; Board Member, S. C. Coastal Conservation League; Board Member, Charleston Habitat for Humanity; Board Member, Trident Literacy Association; Participant, Chamber of Commerce, Leadership Trident, 1990

50.     South Carolina Pro Bono Panel Participant, 1987-1990
Former Member, South Carolina Bar Services to Indigent Committee, Law School Honors: Member, South Carolina Law Review, National Dean's List (1992)

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     George B. Smythe, Loan Officer
Norwest Mortgage
P. O. Box 70397
Charleston, SC 29415-0397
(b)     W. E. Applegate, III, Esquire
Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard
Two Prioleau Street, P. O. Box 1119
Charleston, SC 29402
(c)     W. Foster Gaillard, Esquire
Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, P.A.
Five Exchange Street, P. O. Box 999
Charleston, SC 29402
(d)     Robert L. Clement, Jr.
P. O. Box 993,
Charleston, SC 29402
(e)     Joseph H. McGee
P. O. Box 999
Charleston, SC 29402

Q     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE REPORTS OF APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE SULLIVANS ISLAND CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ALSO CHECKED NEGATIVE. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT.
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     AND STAFF INFORMS ME THAT WE HAVE NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED, AND THAT THERE ARE NO WITNESSES PRESENT TO TESTIFY. WITH THAT, I ASK YOU, PLEASE, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MR. COUICK HAS FOR YOU.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, PLEASE LET ME KNOW; AND IF YOU NEED DOCUMENTATION.
Q     MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. HAGOOD, THERE IS A TIME GAP IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE BETWEEN DECEMBER 1978 WHEN YOU GRADUATED FROM U.V.A. AND 1980 WHEN YOU STARTED LAW SCHOOL AT U.S.C. COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COMMITTEE WHAT YOU WERE DOING DURING THAT TIME PERIOD?
A     YES, I CAN. I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THAT TIME PERIOD IS COVERED IN MY PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR. I GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE A SEMESTER EARLY. I LEFT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. I STAYED UP THERE FOR THE SPRING SEMESTER, ALONG WITH MY PEERS, AND WORKED ESSENTIALLY MENIAL LABOR AT A HORSE FARM THERE THAT SPRING. I WORKED IN A LAW FIRM THAT SUMMER AS A RUNNER. I TRAVELED ABROAD IN THE FALL. AND I MOVED TO COLUMBIA IN JANUARY OF 1980, I BELIEVE. AND DID YOU WANT ME TO GO UP UNTIL THE TIME I STARTED LAW SCHOOL?
Q     THAT'S FINE RIGHT THERE. MR. HAGOOD, YOU LISTED ON YOUR P.D.Q. THAT YOU HAVE SPENT $153 IN CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, BUT YOU'VE MADE NO ETHICS COMMITTEE FILINGS. I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO REVIEW THE LAW IN THAT AREA AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU COMPLY WITH IT. YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NOT VIOLATED ANYTHING TO DATE, BUT YOU PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE NOT IN VIOLATION.
A     I CERTAINLY WILL. I WILL JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT I HAVE NOT USED MUCH OF THAT STATIONERY OR MANY OF THOSE STAMPS, BUT I WILL REVIEW THE LAW ON THAT. THANK YOU.
Q     YOU HAVE NO RATING IN MARTINDALE AND HUBBLE, AS I UNDERSTAND?
A     THAT'S CORRECT. I AM NOT REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE MARTINDALE HUBBLE PROCESS. I HAVE NEVER MADE AN INQUIRY ABOUT IT, AND NEVER REALLY HAD AN OCCASION TO.
Q     YOU LIST FIVE CASES IN YOUR P.D.Q. QUESTION NUMBER 17, AND THESE ARE, YOU LIST FIVE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT LITIGATED MATTERS WHICH YOU PERSONALLY HAVE HANDLED. I BELIEVE I HAD CONTACTED YOU EARLIER THIS WEEK AND ASKED YOU TO BE PREPARED TO TELL THE COMMITTEE THE DATES OF THESE CASES SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE SOME IDEA OF THE HISTORY OF YOUR LAW PRACTICE.
A     THE FIRST CASE LISTED THERE, THE U.S. V. 46.37 ACRES OF LAND, I BELIEVE WAS TRIED IN THE SPRING OF 1990.
Q     OKAY.
A     THE UNITED STATES VERSUS OTTO WITHERSPOON WAS TRIED IN THE FALL OF 1991 OVER A SIX-WEEK TIME PERIOD, I BELIEVE, STARTING IN OCTOBER AND FINISHING IN NOVEMBER. THE UNITED STATES VERSUS MICHAEL CHASE WAS TRIED IN JANUARY OF 1992 OVER A TWO-WEEK TIME PERIOD. THE UNITED STATES VERSUS DARROL HARRISON, ET AL, WAS TRIED JUST RECENTLY IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF 1993. I BELIEVE AT THE TIME THAT I WAS FILLING OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, I WAS IN THE MIDST OF TRIAL, AND STATED THAT THE TRIAL WAS ONGOING AS OF THAT DATE. THE OTHER CASE, AMTRON VERSUS IMMUNOGENETICS WAS--I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMETIME IN 1989. I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DON'T RECALL THE TIME OF YEAR, BUT I AM PRETTY CONFIDENT THIS WAS THAT YEAR.
Q     MR. HAGOOD, YOU HAVE THE DISTINCTION OF BEING THE ONLY PERSON APPLYING FOR A POSITION ON THE COURT OF APPEALS TO HAVE FORMERLY CLERKED FOR THE COURT. WHAT IMPACT HAS YOUR CLERKING ON THAT COURT, WHAT IMPACT WILL THAT HAVE ON YOUR SEEKING THE JUDGESHIP, MORE PARTICULARLY THAT ONE OF THE JUDGES THAT YOU CLERKED FOR, OR THE JUDGE WOULD STILL BE ON THAT COURT, SHOULD YOU BE ELECTED?
A     I THINK I HEAR TWO QUESTIONS BEING ASKED TO ME. ONE, WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT EXPERIENCE HAVE, OR WOULD THAT HAVE ON THE COURT? AND, SECONDLY, WHAT IMPACT MIGHT IT HAVE THAT THE JUDGE THAT I CLERKED FOR MIGHT STILL BE ON THE COURT, IS THAT CORRECT?
Q     RIGHT.
A     AS FOR THE FIRST PART OF THAT QUESTION, I THINK MY EXPERIENCE AS A CLERK ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS WAS A SIGNIFICANT ONE FOR ME. IT WAS MY FIRST JOB OUT OF LAW SCHOOL. THE COURT WAS BRAND-NEW. IN FACT, I HAD--I HAD ACTUALLY HAD ORDERS FOR THE MARINE CORPS OUT OF LAW SCHOOL AND JUDGE BELL, WHO WAS ONE OF MY PROFESSORS AT THE TIME WAS ELEVATED TO THE BENCH THAT SUMMER. HE ASKED ME TO BE HIS FIRST LAW CLERK, AND THE COURT WAS FIRST STARTING OUT. I THINK THAT I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE APPELLATE PRACTICE DURING THAT TIME ABOUT THE WAY THE COURT WORKS; BUT I THINK IMPORTANTLY, I LEARNED THE STANDARDS THAT COURT BEGAN WITH AND HAS UPHELD, AND I THINK PARTICULARLY THE STANDARDS THAT JUDGE BELL UPHOLDS AND EXPECTS OF PEOPLE WORKING FOR HIM. I WILL SAY THAT THOSE ARE HIGH STANDARDS, THAT THEY WERE STANDARDS THAT IMPRESSED ME IN MY FIRST JOB, AND ARE STANDARDS THAT I HAVE TRIED TO ADHERE TO THROUGHOUT MY 10 YEARS OF LAW PRACTICE. THE FACT THAT JUDGE BELL IS STILL ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND MIGHT STILL BE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS IF I WERE ELECTED TO THE BENCH, I DON'T THINK WOULD HAVE ANY IMPACT IN TERMS OF MY DECISION-MAKING. I THINK THAT I CAN HOLD MY OWN. I WOULD EXPECT TO EXERCISE MY JUDGMENT, AND I DON'T SEE THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY IMPACT THERE.
Q     MR. HAGOOD, YOU WERE ONE OF THE LAWYERS RATED BY THE BAR FOR THIS POSITION, AND I BELIEVE YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS RATED AS QUALIFIED, AS OPPOSED TO EITHER WELL-QUALIFIED OR UNQUALIFIED; SO, THAT PUTS YOU, I GUESS, IN THE POSITION OF BEING SATISFIED, BUT NOT TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH HOW THE BAR RATED YOU. WHEN THEY CAME AND INTERVIEWED YOU, DID THEY GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE ANY LIMITATIONS THEY SAW IN TERMS OF YOUR EXPERIENCE OR CAPABILITIES?
A     I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FORMAL NOTIFICATION AS TO THE REASONS BEHIND THEIR RATING OR THE REASONING BEHIND ANY ANTICIPATED RATING. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CONDUCT A NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS, THAT THEY WERE ALSO GOING TO INTERVIEW ME, AND THAT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THEY WOULD DO THAT AFTER INTERVIEWING OTHER PEOPLE AND GIVE ME A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THINGS. INFORMALLY, I THINK I HAVE TO--I HAVE TO MAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS AS TO THE REASONING BEHIND THEIR RATING BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT FORMALLY GIVEN THAT TO ME. WHEN I-- AND PART OF MY EDUCATED GUESS WOULD COME FROM WHAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SAID TO ME AT THE TIME THAT WE BEGAN THE INTERVIEW. ESSENTIALLY ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SAID, "WE HAVE INTERVIEWED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. AS FAR AS YOUR CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY GOES, IF 4 WERE THE HIGHEST, YOU WOULD GET A 5. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT ANYONE HAS EVEN RAISED IN OUR INTERVIEWS IS ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE," AND THAT WAS HOW WE BEGAN THE INTERVIEW, AND I THINK THEY GAVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO--WELL, THEY ASKED ME QUESTIONS ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE. WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT. I HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO FORMALLY RESPOND, OF COURSE, OR TO CALL ANY WITNESSES OR ANY OF THAT TYPE OF THING.
Q     WHAT TYPE OF EXPERIENCE WERE THEY LOOKING FOR, OR COULD YOU GAUGE THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR?
A     I'M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE THEY REALLY JUST ASKED ME TO EXPLAIN MY EXPERIENCE. THEY DIDN'T POINT OUT WHAT THEIR CRITERIA WAS IN THE SENSE THAT "WE BELIEVE A CANDIDATE FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE THIS OR SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT"; AND, SO, IT WAS MORE OF A MATTER OF "TELL US ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE."
Q     BUT THEY DIDN'T SAY--AND I HATE TO PLAY ONE CANDIDATE OFF ANOTHER, BUT YOU JUST HEARD JUDGE CONNOR TALK ABOUT A RATHER LENGTHY JUDICIAL CAREER, BUT A FAIRLY LIMITED APPELLATE PRACTICE, BUT SHE WAS FOUND TO BE WELL-QUALIFIED; SO, OBVIOUSLY THE COMMITTEE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT THERE THAT HER TRIAL PRACTICE AND HER JUDICIAL SERVICE SOMEHOW SUPPLANTED THE NEED FOR AN EXTENSIVE APPELLATE PRACTICE. IN YOUR CASE, DID THEY INDICATE THAT YOU LACKED APPELLATE PRACTICE OR THAT YOU LACKED TRIAL PRACTICE? OR JUST TO BE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRED SOME DEGREE OF GRAY HAIR, OR YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO CLAIM THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE GRAY HAIR, I MEAN?
A     THEY DID NOT. AND I THINK I ONLY CAN MAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS OR SURMISE, AND PERHAPS I SHOULD RESPOND WITH MY GUESS AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I REALLY HAVEN'T HAD ANY OTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. MY ONLY GUESS COULD BE THAT EITHER THEY FELT THAT A CANDIDATE FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, OR THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE MORE TRIAL EXPERIENCE, OR LEGAL EXPERIENCE THAN I HAVE HAD IN 10 YEARS IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED WELL-QUALIFIED.
Q     HOW OFTEN ARE YOU IN THE COURTROOM?
A     WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO--I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO BOTH OF THOSE IF I MAY, AND MAYBE I WILL TAKE--LET ME ADDRESS THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY FIRST. I HAVE HAD A VARIED PRACTICE OVER THE 10 YEARS. I HAVE BEEN IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURT. I HAVE BEEN IN MILITARY COURTS THAT FOLLOW THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND A LOT OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE. IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, WHILE I HAVE BEEN IN THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I HAVE BEEN IN COURT EXTENSIVELY. I HAVE--I'M IN COURT EVERY WEEK NOW, SOMETIMES SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK, SOMETIMES ALL WEEK, SOMETIMES ALL MONTH. A LOT OF CASES I HANDLE ARE LARGER CASES, MULTI-DEFENDANT CASES. I WAS ESSENTIALLY IN COURT FOR THE ENTIRE MONTH OF MARCH AND A GOOD BIT OF THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY. THE TIME WHEN I WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE PRIOR TO THAT, I--I THINK I PUT MONTHLY DOWN ON MY PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AS PROBABLY THE BEST ESTIMATE OF THE FREQUENCY OF APPEARING IN COURTS FOR MOTIONS AND TRIALS. I HAD TRIED SEVERAL CIVIL ACTIONS DURING THAT THREE-YEAR TIME. AND, OF COURSE, DURING MY MARINE CORPS EXPERIENCE, I WAS IN COURT DAILY, BOTH AS A PROSECUTOR AND AS A DEFENSE COUNSEL IN A PRACTICE THAT WAS SIMILAR TO A LOCAL D.A. AND TO A PUBLIC DEFENDER, AND HANDLING A VOLUME OF CASES. I THINK THAT MY EXPERIENCE OVER 10 YEARS IS THE BEST EXPERIENCE THAT I COULD HAVE GOTTEN DURING THAT TIME. I DON'T HAVE GRAY HAIR, AND THERE IS NOT MUCH I CAN DO ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW. BUT THE VARIETY OF THE CASES THAT I HAVE HANDLED DURING THAT TIME, I THINK, IS SIGNIFICANT. OF THE VOLUME OF CASES, I THINK I HAVE HANDLED A NUMBER OF CASES. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A HIGHER VOLUME OF CASES IF I HAD BEEN IN A PUBLIC DEFENDER ROLE OR A PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OR IN A CIVIL SHOP TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT HANDLING A LARGE QUANTITY OF CASES. THE NUMBERS MIGHT BE HIGHER, BUT THE QUALITY OF THAT EXPERIENCE, I DON'T THINK WOULD MATCH WHAT I HAVE HAD IN THE SENSE THAT I HAVE HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES - EVERYTHING FROM FEDERAL MURDER CASES, TO PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS IN STATE COURT, TO HANDLING COMPLICATED HAZARDOUS WASTE PROSECUTIONS, AS WELL AS CIVIL ACTIONS, AS WELL AS PROSECUTING LARGE DRUG KINGPINS DISTRIBUTION RINGS. AND, SO, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD REGARDING MY LEGAL EXPERIENCE. AS FOR THE---
Q     LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTION AND THAT IS WHY I ASKED YOU ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE, ASSUMING FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT THAT THE QUALITY OF YOUR EXPERIENCE IS SUFFICIENT, THAT YOU HAVE HAD A VARIETY OF EXPERIENCE AND THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE DONE MORE IN TERMS OF VARIETY THAN WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. I THINK THERE IS A PRETTY GOOD ARGUMENT THAT YOU CAN MAKE THERE FOR THAT. WHAT OTHER OBJECTION COULD THEY HAVE TO EXPERIENCE OTHER THAN LENGTHS OF TIME?
A     PERHAPS NO PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NOT HAD.
Q     DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY OF THE CURRENT JUDGES ON THE COURT OF APPEALS WERE JUDGES BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS?
A     TWO OF THE CURRENT SIX, IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORIGINAL PANEL, THE ORIGINAL COURT THAT WAS ELECTED BACK IN 1983, SIX JUDGES, THAT I BELIEVE FOUR OF THEM CAME FROM PRIVATE PRACTICE WITH NO PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. OF COURSE, THE COMPOSITION OF THAT COURT HAS NOT CHANGED UP UNTIL NOW, IN THAT CHIEF JUDGE SANDERS' RESIGNATION.
Q     SO I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED IS DID THE BAR EXPRESS TO YOU IN TERMS OF EXPERIENCE, ANYTHING OTHER THAN QUANTITY IN TIME, OR PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE? WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE THAT SAID YOU ARE LACKING?
A     NO. I THINK I GAVE YOU, IN ESSENCE, WHAT THEY TOLD ME THAT I KNOW AT THIS POINT COULD BE A REASON FOR THEIR RATING.
Q     ANYTHING ELSE NEGATIVE THEY MENTIONED TO YOU OUTSIDE OF THE AREA OF EXPERIENCE?
A     NO.
Q     I FEEL LIKE I MAY HAVE CUT YOU OFF ON PART OF YOUR ANSWER. PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
A     WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE THE POINT IN TERMS OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, OF COURSE, THAT I THINK THAT THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE MADE THAT PERHAPS A LAWYER'S EXPERIENCE OR COURTROOM EXPERIENCE MAY BEEN EVEN BETTER TO SOME EXTENT ON THE APPELLATE BENCH. I THINK WE HAVE THE PRECEDENT OF THIS COURT THAT FOUR OUT THE ORIGINAL SIX WERE PRACTITIONERS COMING TO THE BENCH, RATHER THAN JUDGES. AND I THINK THAT FROM A LAWYER'S PERSPECTIVE, I HAVE PERHAPS BEEN A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE PUBLIC IN TERMS OF PREPARING CASES BEFORE THE COURTS, DOING WORK OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM, AND THEN I'M ALL TOO WELL AWARE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT GO INTO PREPARING A CASE BEFORE THE COURT, AND THAT EXPERIENCE, I THINK, IS A VALID ONE AND ONE THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND ONE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AS WELL.
Q     TO KIND OF FINALIZE THIS AREA OF YOUR INTERFACE WITH THE BAR, IF YOU WOULD PROVIDE TO MRS. SATTERWHITE A LISTING OF THOSE FOLKS THAT YOU RECOMMENDED TO THE BAR FOR CONTACTING---
A     I CERTAINLY WOULD.
Q     ---I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. MOVING ON TO THE OTHER AREAS, PARTICULARLY JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH THE BENCH? WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TEMPERAMENT?
A     I THINK THAT COURTESY AND FAIRNESS ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO THE ROLE OF A JUDGE; BUT I THINK DEMEANOR GOES EVEN BEYOND THAT, I THINK BOTH IN AND OUT OF THE COURTROOM, I THINK THAT A JUDGE SHOULD, ABOVE ALL THINGS, RESPECT THE DIGNITY OF EVERY PERSON, AND I THINK I FOUND THAT PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING AS A PROSECUTOR. THERE IS PERHAPS NO MORE ADVERSARIAL ROLE THAN A PROSECUTOR AND A DEFENDANT ON TRIAL, BUT I HAVE TRIED AS HARD AS I CAN TO RESPECT THE DIGNITY OF EVERY PERSON. AND IF THAT MEANS CROSS-EXAMINING SOMEONE ON THE STAND THAT I THINK IS GUILTY, AND I AM PROSECUTING HIM, I AM GOING TO TREAT THAT PERSON WITH DIGNITY. I THINK THAT PERSON DESERVES THAT. HE MAY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. HE MIGHT SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR IT, BUT HE IS ENTITLED TO THE RESPECT OF EVERYONE IN THE COURTROOM. I THINK THAT JUDICIAL DEMEANOR GOES EVEN A STEP BEYOND THAT TO THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP, PARTICULARLY ON THE APPELLATE BENCH. I HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE IN MY EXPERIENCE, GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE, THAT I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE FORCED ME TO BE PLACED IN ROLES OF LEADERSHIP AND I HAVE LEARNED A GOOD BIT ABOUT THAT DURING MY YEARS. AND I AM COMMITTED TO SERVANT LEADERSHIP, I'M COMMITTED TO THE IDEA THAT A JUDGE SHOULD BE SETTING AN EXAMPLE TO THE PUBLIC IN ORDER THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE FAITH IN THE JUDICIARY, AND HAVE A STRONG SENSE OF CONFIDENCE IN HIS GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK IT ALSO GOES TO LEADERSHIP AND A WISE USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM.
Q     YOU AND JUDGE CONNOR, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR YOUTH, HAVE THE DISTINCTION OF THIS QUESTION BEING ASKED TO YOU: IF YOU ARE ELECTED AND SERVE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, WOULD IT BE IN YOUR PLANS TO AT SOME POINT RETIRE AND GO BACK INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE?
A     I CANNOT SAY THAT AT THIS POINT. I WOULD--LIKE JUDGE CONNOR, I SORT OF TAKE ONE STEP AT A TIME IN LIFE, AND I HAVE NO ANTICIPATED PLANS AS TO WHETHER I WOULD REMAIN ON THE BENCH OR RETURN TO PRIVATE PRACTICE. I AM COMMITTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE. I PERSONALLY FEEL A CALLING TO PUBLIC SERVICE. I FEEL THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE I CAN SERVE AND MAKE A CONTRIBUTION; AND AT THIS POINT IN MY LIFE, THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS MY CAREER PLANS GO AT THIS POINT.
Q     MR. HAGOOD, YOUR WORK ETHIC, DESCRIBE THAT AND HOW YOU WOULD APPROACH BEING ON THE BENCH.
A     I AM COMMITTED TO GETTING THE JOB DONE. THE JOB THAT I AM IN NOW OFTEN REQUIRES ME TO BE AT WORK AT 7:30 TO A QUARTER TO 8:00 IN THE MORNING, GO OR RUN THROUGH LUNCH IN PREPARING WITNESSES, AND GOING LATE WITH COURT, AND MAYBE STICKING AROUND AT NIGHT AND PREPARING WITNESSES FOR THE NEXT DAY. THAT MAY BE A PACE THAT I HAVE TO KEEP FOR THREE OR FOUR WEEKS DURING TRIAL, AND THAT'S WHAT I AM COMMITTED TO DO TO GET THE JOB DONE. I THINK WITH THIS JOB, I WILL HAVE THAT SAME COMMITMENT, AND THERE MAY BE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF AN APPELLATE CASELOAD IN TERMS OF THE HOURS THAT I MIGHT KEEP IN WRITING OPINIONS, BUT I AM GOING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF ISSUING OPINIONS AND GETTING THE JOB DONE ON A DAILY AND WEEKLY BASIS.
Q     WOULD YOU INTEND TO RELOCATE TO COLUMBIA IF YOU'RE ELECTED?
A     I DO NOT INTEND TO DO THAT. IT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO BE IN COLUMBIA DURING THE WEEKS OF ORAL ARGUMENT, THE PANELS ON WHICH I WOULD BE ASSIGNED, AND I WOULD PLAN ON BEING HERE DURING THAT TIME, BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAINTAIN CHAMBERS BACK IN MY HOME COUNTY, AND TO HAVE A SECRETARY AND A LAW CLERK THERE TO WORK ON OPINIONS.
Q     WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE COMMITTEE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP IN TERMS OF WRITING AND ANY PRESENTATIONS TO C.L.E.'S OR J.C.L.E.'S, OR IN YOUR CASE MILITARY PANELS, THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE GIVEN?
A     I WAS A LEGAL WRITING INSTRUCTOR IN LAW SCHOOL. I WAS A MEMBER OF THE LAW REVIEW. I PUBLISHED A COMMENT WHILE IN LAW SCHOOL IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW. WHILE IN THE MARINE CORPS, I WAS IN A TRIAL PRACTICE, RATHER THAN APPELLATE PRACTICE. BUT SINCE BEING BACK IN SOUTH CAROLINA WITH THE MARINE CROPS, I HAVE SPOKEN AT A VARIETY OF SEMINARS. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH SEMINARS PUT ON BY THE NATIONAL RESOURCES SECTION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, BY TRAINING SESSIONS PUT ON BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I HAVE SPOKEN IN A CONFERENCE IN BALTIMORE REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL PROSECUTIONS. I HAVE SPOKEN TO VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL GROUPS IN THE CHARLESTON AREA. AND A LOT OF THESE REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS. I HAVE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO BE A SPEAKER AT A NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS LATER ON THIS SUMMER, WHICH WILL REQUIRE PREPARATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS.
Q     MOVING FROM THE CAPACITY THAT YOU ARE IN WHERE YOU TEND TO TRY CASES AND BE INTERACTIVE WITH PEOPLE TO WHERE YOU WILL BE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS WHERE YOU'RE INTERACTIVE WITH PAPER AND PEN, IS THAT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT SATISFIES YOU?
A     I THINK IT WILL. LIKE JUDGE CONNOR, I SHARE SOME CONCERN. IT'S OBVIOUSLY A JOB THAT REQUIRES ONE TO BE MORE REMOVED FROM THE BAR AND FROM DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC. I THINK MY PERSONALITY AND INTEREST LENDS ITSELF TO CAREFUL REASON ANALYSIS AND WRITING, AND THAT I HAVE--I HAVE DEVELOPED MORE PEOPLE SKILLS IN THE LAST 10 YEARS PRACTICING LAW, BUT THAT MY INITIAL PROPENSITIES PERHAPS ARE MORE TO AN ANALYSIS AND WRITING TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT.
Q     YOU HEARD ME ASK JUDGE CONNOR ABOUT--EXCUSE ME--CHANGE IN THE RULES REGARDING ASSIGNMENTS OF CASES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. GIVE ME YOUR REACTION TO WHAT YOU HEARD DESCRIBED.
A     I DO NOT HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ANY OF THE CHANGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS IN THE PROCESS OF REDISTRIBUTING THE APPELLATE CASELOAD. I--AND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PROCEDURES THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY BE IMPLEMENTING IN THAT REGARD. I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME AS A CANDIDATE TO COMMENT ON THE PROPRIETY OF THAT. LIKE JUDGE CONNOR, AS AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, THAT WOULD NOT BE MY DECISION AND I WOULD FOLLOW THE DECISION MADE BY MY SUPERIORS ON THAT. MY CONCERNS WOULD BE THE PERCEPTION THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE AND THAT THE COMMITMENT THAT THE COURT, THE APPELLATE COURTS, HAVE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE SENSE, ARE THEY BETRAYING THE IMAGE THAT EACH JUDGE IS CONCERNED IN PREPARING EACH CASE AND IS THAT BEING CLEARLY COMMUNICATED? - NOW WHETHER THAT IS A--WHETHER THAT CAN BE DONE BY POLICY, OR WHETHER THAT CAN BE DONE BY COMMITMENT OF EACH JUDGE IN PREPARATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, I AM NOT SURE IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE UNDERLYING COMMITMENT.
Q     IN MATTERS OF HEALTH, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL THE COMMITTEE ABOUT?
A     NO.
Q     EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, WHAT PRACTICES HAVE YOU EMPLOYED AS AN ATTORNEY; PARTICULARLY AS A LITIGATOR IN THIS AREA, AS A JUDGE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS WHAT PRACTICES WOULD YOU EXPECT BEFORE YOU IN TERMS OF LIMITATIONS ON EX PARTE COMMUNICATION?
A     I AM IN A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR IN THE COURTHOUSE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES, AND WE ARE SOMETIMES CONTACTED BY DISTRICT COURT JUDGES REGARDING SCHEDULING MATTERS AS TO WHEN A CASE WOULD BE PREPARED, OR WHEN HE MIGHT EXPECT TO CALL IT FOR TRIAL, AND SOMETIMES THAT IS DONE BY HIS CHAMBERS TO US WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTY PRESENT. I RARELY OR NEVER INITIATE THAT TYPE OF THING WITHOUT SOME INDICATION FROM CHAMBERS THAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOME ANSWER ON THAT TYPE OF THING. AND, OF COURSE, IT WOULD NEVER GO INTO ANY MATTERS OF ANY SUBSTANCE. AS A MEMBER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT, AND I THINK THAT EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE APPELLATE COURT JUDGES ARE OBVIOUSLY ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE, AND I THINK ARE ONES OR IT'S A SITUATION THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN WITHOUT THERE BEING A--RAISING AN OBVIOUS CONCERN.
Q     I NOTE THAT YOU HAVE TWO CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF THREE, I BELIEVE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BALANCE YOUR DOMESTIC RESPONSIBILITIES WITH THIS SCHEDULE?
A     I HAVE A VERY SINCERE COMMITMENT TO MY FAMILY. MY FAMILY COMES FIRST TO ME. I AM VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE A WIFE WHO IS COMMITTED TO OUR CHILDREN. SHE'S A SCHOOL TEACHER AND HAS ELECTED TO REMAIN AT HOME DURING THE FIRST FEW YEARS OF OUR LITTLE GIRLS' LIVES; AND WHEN THEY START SCHOOL, SHE INTENDS TO RETURN TO SCHOOL-TEACHING, SO THAT A LOT OF THE CHILD CARE CONCERNS DAY-TO-DAY, MY WIFE IS ASSUMING A LOT OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY. I DO THE VERY BEST THAT I CAN TO SPEND TIME AT HOME WHEN I AM NOT AT WORK, AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE APPROACH THAT I WOULD TAKE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Q     MR. HAGOOD, ONE MATTER THAT CAME UP THIS WEEK, AND TO BE TRUTHFUL, I FAILED TO ASK JUDGE CONNOR ABOUT IT, WOULD BE IF YOU HAD A MATTER BEFORE YOU IN WHICH YOU HAD DEMINIMIS FINANCIAL INTERESTS, ONE SMALL, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR POSITION ON HEARING THAT CASE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS?
A     I WOULD CERTAINLY DISCLOSE THAT TO BOTH PARTIES, AND I WOULD--IF THERE WERE ANY CONCERN BY EITHER PARTY ABOUT THAT, THEN I WOULD VIEW THAT AS AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY CONCERN. AND, OF COURSE, I WOULD--I WOULD FIRST CHECK THE JUDICIAL CANNONS AND ETHICAL STANDARDS TO BE SURE THAT THERE--THAT WAS NOT A PROBLEM; BUT, FRANKLY, IF THERE WAS ANY FINANCIAL INTERESTS THAT I WERE INVOLVED IN, I AM JUST NOT SURE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO SIT IN THAT CASE.
Q     THE AREA OF GIFTS, YOU'VE HEARD THE QUESTIONS EARLIER FOR WHAT YOU DEEM TO BE ACCEPTABLE; HOW BROADLY DO YOU DEFINE THE EXCEPTION FOR ORDINARY SOCIAL HOSPITALITY?
A     NOT VERY BROADLY. I WOULD THINK THAT ANY SORT OF LUNCHES OR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE CLASSIFIED AS A GIFT IS OFF LIMITS. MY CONCERN, AGAIN, WOULD BE THREE-FOLD: IS THERE ANYTHING IMPROPER THERE? - AND I THINK OUR STANDARDS CAN TELL US THAT. IS ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY THERE? - AND, THIRDLY, WHAT IS THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS--THAT MY ACTION WOULD MAKE? - IS IT GOING TO ENHANCE THE IMAGE OF THE JUDICIARY OR NOT. AND THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT I WOULD HOLD MYSELF TO.
Q     YOU CURRENTLY SERVE IN THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I BELIEVE, AS A CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     HAVE YOU CAUSED OR REQUESTED ANY PERSON OR ATTORNEY APPEARING AGAINST YOU IN THAT CAPACITY TO WRITE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU FOR THIS POSITION?
A     HAVE I CAUSED OR?
Q     ASKED ANY OTHER PERSON THAT TENDS TO APPEAR AS OPPOSING COUNSEL TO YOU TO WRITE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION?
A     NO, I HAVE NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I HAVE SPOKEN TO SOME OF MY FRIENDS IN THE BAR IN CHARLESTON OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS ABOUT MY INTEREST IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND SOME EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN WRITING SOME LETTERS ON MY BEHALF, AND SOME HAVE. I DON'T--TO MY KNOWLEDGE NONE OF THEM APPEAR IN CRIMINAL COURT AT THIS TIME.
Q     YOU HAVE NOT ASKED SPECIFICALLY ANYBODY IN A PENDING CASE TO WRITE A LETTER ON YOUR BEHALF?
A     NO.
Q     AND, FINALLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE TWO PLEDGES THAT THE COMMITTEE ASKED THAT I ASK OF EACH CANDIDATE: WOULD YOU SWEAR THAT YOU HAVE NOT SOUGHT THE PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR'S VOTE PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SCREENING PROCESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLEDGE SOUGHT IS CONDITIONAL UPON YOUR FUTURE PROGRESS IN THIS PROCESS?
A     ABSOLUTELY NOT, NO.
Q     AND, FINALLY, HAVE YOU SOUGHT THE ASSISTANCE OR AUTHORIZED ANY PERSON TO SEEK PLEDGES ON YOUR BEHALF UNDER THOSE SAME CONDITIONS?
A     I HAVE NOT.
Q     ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYBODY THAT HAS SOUGHT PLEDGES ON YOUR BEHALF?
A     NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q     ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYBODY THAT IS PLEDGED TO YOU?
A     NO.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? - SENATOR MOORE.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MR. HAGOOD, WHEN DID THE INTERVIEW WITH THE BAR TAKE PLACE WITH YOU?
A     IT TOOK PLACE LAST WEDNESDAY IN THE MORNING.
Q     HOW MANY INTERVIEWERS WERE INVOLVED?
A     THERE WERE TWO INTERVIEWERS. THERE WAS A THIRD INTERVIEWER WHO WAS SCHEDULED WHO APPARENTLY HAD SOME EMERGENCY IN THE FAMILY, AND SHE WAS UNABLE TO BE THERE.
Q     DO YOU KNOW WHAT PART OF THE STATE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE TWO INTERVIEWERS?
A     ONE WAS FROM CHARLESTON AND ONE WAS FROM ANDERSON, I BELIEVE.
Q     WELL, I THINK COUNSEL HAS ASKED YOU ABOUT THE "QUALIFIED" VERSUS THE "WELL-QUALIFIED" AND "UNQUALIFIED." DO YOU FEEL THAT IT WAS FAIRLY REACHED, THE CONCLUSION? - I REALIZE THAT PUTS ATTORNEYS ON THE SPOT WITH THE BAR. BEING A NON-ATTORNEY, I CAN BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO ASK IT.
A     I THINK I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE MERITS OF THE RATING AND MY EDUCATED GUESS AS TO WHY THE RATING IS WHAT IT IS; AND I, TOO, DON'T WANT TO BE EMBROILED IN THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THIS COMMITTEE AND THAT COMMITTEE, I ASSURE YOU, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT THAT COMMITTEE HAS ENDEAVORED TO DO IN CONTRIBUTING TO THE MERIT SELECTION OF JUDGES IS AN IMPORTANT EFFORT. I THINK THAT THEY HAVE DONE--THEY HAVE DONE THE BEST THAT THEY COULD, AND I THINK THE PROCESS WAS INTENDED TO BE FAIR, AND I THINK IT HAS BEEN FAIR. THE ONLY CRITICISM THAT I WOULD HAVE IS THAT I HAVE NO FORMAL NOTIFICATION OF WHAT THE REASON WAS FOR THE RATING. I WOULD NOT EXPECT TO WANT TO KNOW THE SOURCE OF THAT REASONING, BUT THE REASONING ITSELF, WHETHER THERE WAS--IF THEY WERE LOOKING AT FIVE CRITERIA, AND THEY FOUND ME "WELL-QUALIFIED" ON SOME, AND ONLY "QUALIFIED" ON OTHERS, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT, AND I THINK THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO KNOW THAT; BUT TO GO THE NEXT STEP TO WHAT WITNESSES MAY HAVE SAID, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS WHAT THEIR PROCESS INTENDED, AND I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD NEED THAT, IN FAIRNESS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS MOST--IS IN THE BEST SITUATION TO DO. AS JUDGE CONNOR SAID, THEY HAVE ENDEAVORED TO COME UP WITH JUST A SMALL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THAT YOU GENTLEMEN ARE ALL ABOUT HERE TODAY.
Q     I ASSUME YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE REASONS AND THE FACTS?
A     I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE REASONS, NOT NECESSARILY THE FACTS OR THE PEOPLE OR THE WITNESSES BEHIND THOSE REASONS. IF THE BAR IS GOING TO GIVE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION THE REASONING BEHIND THEIR RATING, I WOULD FEEL THAT I SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT, AS WELL.
Q     IF SOMEONE HAD FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU, MR. HAGOOD, TO THIS COMMITTEE, WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE?
A     WITH THE BAR COMMITTEE?
Q     NO, NO, WITH THIS COMMITTEE.
A     WITH THIS COMMITTEE HERE, YES, SIR. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE RULES THAT I WOULD.
Q     YOU WOULD BE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE AND FEEL THAT YOU WOULD BE TREATED UNFAIRLY IF SOMEONE HAD COMPLAINED AND WE WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO HEAR THAT COMPLAINT AND YOU NOT HAVE THE--WERE NOT AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR IT?
A     UNDER THE RULES OF THIS COMMITTEE, YES.
Q     UNDER THE LAW.
A     YES, SIR, CERTAINLY WITH THE TYPE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS ABOUT, CERTAINLY, YES.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     IN YOUR PRACTICE IN FEDERAL COURT, HAVE YOU AT ALL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE SYSTEM THAT IS USED TO REVIEW FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPLICANTS BY THE A.B.A.?
A     I HAVE NOT, NO. I HAVE JUST HEARD THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR TRIED TO MODEL ITSELF AFTER THE A.B.A., BUT I KNOW NOTHING OF IT.
Q     SO YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE RULES OF THE A.B.A.?
A     NO.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:

Q     I THINK WE HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT OFF OF SCREENING YOU TO SCREENING THE BAR'S PROGRAM, BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE, LET ME ASK THIS:

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     IT APPEARS THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU ARE OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE BAR'S SCREENING PROGRAM IS ONLY INTENDED TO TAKE JUST A LITTLE NICHE OF THE SCREENING PROCESS. ON WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT?
A     WHAT THEY TOLD ME ABOUT THEIR PROCESS AND THEIR PUBLISHED PROCEDURES.
Q     SO YOU DON'T THINK BY THEM PUBLISHING YOU AND RATING YOU AS WELL-QUALIFIED, QUALIFIED, AND UNQUALIFIED, AND PUBLISHING THAT IN THE NEWSPAPER, YOU DON'T THINK THAT GOES FURTHER THAN JUST BEING A LITTLE NICHE IN THE SCREENING PROCESS?
A     IT MAY. I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I HAVE NOT--I WAS TOTALLY UNPREPARED FOR THE EXCHANGE THAT I SAW THIS MORNING AND UNAWARE OF ALL THE TENSION BETWEEN THE TWO COMMITTEES.
Q     WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN: DO YOU FEEL THAT THEIR RATING AS QUALIFIED, UNQUALIFIED, OR VERY QUALIFIED, AND NOT HAVING TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS DONE IS IMPORTANT IN THAT RATING?
A     I WILL BE FRANK, I HAD ASSUMED THAT THEY HAD ACCESS TO ALL THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAD IN REGARD TO CRIMINAL CHECKS, BUT I GATHER FROM WHAT I HEAR THAT THEY DID NOT; SO, I CAN ONLY STATE--AND MAYBE I WOULD LIKE TO DO AN ABOUT-FACE ON THIS ROAD AND BACK UP A LITTLE BIT---

(LAUGHTER.)

A     ---AND RESTATE THAT I REALLY DON'T FEEL IT PROPER TO COMMENT TOO MUCH ON THE PROCESS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THE ONE STATEMENT THAT I HAVE GOT FOR YOU IS THAT--AND IT'S REALLY MORE OF A STATEMENT THAN A QUESTION, BUT THE POSITION THAT WE ARE PUT INTO IS THAT WE ARE GIVEN A RATING ON YOU, GIVEN RATINGS ON OTHERS, AND WE'RE GIVEN ABSOLUTELY NO REASONS FOR THAT RATING, NOR ARE YOU; SO, HOW IS IT, YOU KNOW, THAT I AM TO JUDGE THE MERIT OF THAT RATING AND HOW IT STACKS UP, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF THAT RATING. IT'S JUST HANGING OUT THERE. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IT'S A FLOP. I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING AT THIS POINT HOW TO JUDGE THE RATING ON YOU.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.
MR. COUICK: GO AHEAD.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: WELL, I JUST WANTED--THIS MAY BE WHAT MIKE WAS GETTING READY TO COVER. I WOULD JUST OFFER FOR MR. HAGOOD IF HE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE, AS YOU HAVE SUGGESTED EARLIER, THAT YOU GAVE TO THE BAR COMMITTEE. IT MAY HELP US. WE MAY WANT TO CONTACT THEM AND TALK WITH THEM, OR IF YOU WANT TO OFFER THEM UP JUST TO COME TESTIFY TO US, I THINK WE WOULD BE WILLING TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE WE FEEL SORT OF AT A LOSS IN TERM OF EVALUATING CANDIDATES BEYOND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN HERE TODAY IF THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE TALKED TO AND RELIED UPON IN ARRIVING AT THEIR REPRESENTATIONS; SO, YOU ARE WELCOME TO GIVE US THAT INFORMATION, AND WE WILL BE GLAD TO TRY TO TALK TO THEM.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, MY ACTUAL REQUEST WAS GOING TO BE FOR YOU TO AUTHORIZE SUBPOENAS FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS, MUCH AS I DID EARLIER WITH--THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH MR. GARFINKEL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: OKAY. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION?

(NONE VOICED.)

MR. COUICK: I CERTAINLY REALIZE THAT IT MAY PUT SOME FOLKS UNDER A HARDSHIP; WE MAY HAVE TO ASK THE COMMITTEE TO GO BACK AND QUASH THE SUBPOENA. ONE FURTHER POINT, I DID NOT GO OVER THIS, MR. HAGOOD; SO, I WILL NOTE FOR THE COMMITTEE'S BENEFIT THAT YOU DID LIST AN APPELLATE PRACTICE AND THAT YOU DID HAVE BOTH IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND WITH THE STATE COURT, AND I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
MR. HAGOOD: THANK YOU.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. HAGOOD: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: DO Y'ALL WANT TO GO ONE MORE? ARE Y'ALL GAME FOR ONE MORE? WE'VE GOT JUDGE HOWELL. ALL RIGHT, DO YOU NEED A BREAK? - DO Y'ALL WANT TO GO ONE MORE REAL QUICK?
MR. COUICK: IT'S GOING TO BE FAST.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, COUNSEL INFORMS ME THAT IT WILL BE FAST.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I'LL BET YOU WERE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT, WEREN'T YOU, JUDGE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: JUDGE HOWELL, FOR THE RECORD, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. THE HONORABLE WILLIAM TINDALL HOWELL, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR MCCONNELL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:

Q     THANK YOU, SIR. DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS WITH THIS COMMITTEE?
A     YES, SIR.

(LAUGHTER.)

Q     IS THERE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMARY, WHICH IS ALREADY ON FILE WITH THIS COMMITTEE?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     ALL RIGHT, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION THEN OF US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY FOR THIS JUDGESHIP?
A     ABSOLUTELY NONE.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     William Tindall Howell
Home Address:                                     Business Address:
242 Overhill Drive                             P. O. Box 168
Walterboro, SC 29488                     Walterboro, SC 29488

2.     He was born in Walterboro, South Carolina, on March 8, 1941. He is presently 52 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Susan Gail Dooley on August 23, 1964. He has three children: Lesli Peyton Howell Pryor, age 27 (employed at DSS, Walterboro, SC); William T., Jr., age 24 (operations officer, NationsBank); and John Asher, age 20 (student, Clemson University).

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended Clemson University, 1959-1963, B.S. Degree in Animal Husbandry; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1964-1967, J.D. Degree Cum Laude.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has met all requirements for CLE and met all Judicial Conferences.
1991 - Advanced evidence course at National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
In 1989 and 1990 he was speaker at annual Judicial Conferences; speaker at S. C. Defense Lawyers Association; on program of Charleston County Bar Association CLE in 1989; speaker at JCLE programs twice in 1985; member Clinical Faculty at Harvard Law School, teaching Trial Advocacy to 3rd year law students from 1981 to 1991. He was on the program to instruct new judges in 1990 and 1992.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He began practicing law in Walterboro, South Carolina with Thomas M. Howell, Jr., April 13, 1967. In June, 1969, he began practicing law with Gerald C. Smoak in partnership, the partnership added additional partners, Auburn J. Bridge and Lee Ray Moody and associate Paul N. Siegel. In 1979, he was elected Circuit Court Judge at Large, Seat #2 to present.

20.     Judicial Office:
He was City Recorder, City Court, Walterboro, South Carolina, 1971-1972. He was elected by the City Council. The jurisdiction of this Court was the same as the jurisdiction of a Magistrate's Court involving traffic violations and misdemeanors. He is presently a Circuit Court Judge at Large with unlimited general criminal and civil jurisdiction, 1979 to present.

21.     Five (5) of the most significant orders or opinions:
(a)     Allen E. Vaughan, William A. Vaughan, Tom S. Bruce, and James R. Mann, Respondents v. James T. Kalyvas and Anne B. Kalyvas, Appellant. 342 S.E.2d 617.
(b)     Betty Sligh, Administratrix of the Estate of Martha Murphy, Appellant v. James H. Johnson, Jr., M.D., and Stanmore E. Reed, M.D., Respondents. 342 S.E.2d 620.
(c)     Jack L. Chandler, Deceased Employee, Millie M. Chandler, Widow, Jack L. Chandler, Jr., Son, and Pamela Chandler Hopkins, Daughter, Claimants, of whom Millie M. Chandler is Appellant v. Suitt Construction Company, Employer, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Carrier, Respondents. Appeal of Millie M. Chandler. 343 S.E.2d 633
(d)     The Mayor's House, Inc., Respondent v. Albert Mosseri, Soloman Mosseri and Soloman Castro, Appellants.
(e)     Dorchester County School District Three, Leon Addison, Ellis Boyd, Jr., William Boyd, Jr., Gladys Gardner, Nancy Hargrove, Rachel Jenkins, and Larry Marchant, in their official capacity as members of the Board of Trustees with Dorchester County School District Three, Plaintiffs v. Dorchester County Council, et al., Defendants. C.A. No. 85-CP-18-528

22.     Public Office: He was elected to the South Carolina State Senate, District No. 15, Office No. 1, 1977-1979.

24.     Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Upon graduating from Clemson in 1963, and before entering law school in 1964, he was employed by the Clemson Extension Service as an assistant county agent in Bamberg County. He also, for about 4 years, owned a one-half interest in a restaurant between 1975 and the spring of 1979. He is also a timber farmer, and was formerly on the Board of Directors and President of State Savings and Loan Association of Walterboro, South Carolina.

25.     Officer or Director: He is a general partner of Howell Farms, A Partnership (Timber Farm).

31.     Sued:     He was a Plaintiff in an action as an organizer and director of State Savings and Loan Association of Walterboro v. the Directors of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Walterboro in the Court of Common Pleas. The cause of action was malicious delay of our application to establish an additional savings and loan association in Walterboro. The action was answered by the Defendants and a counterclaim was served on the Plaintiff. State Savings was eventually chartered and at present is operational. The suit was dismissed by a consent of parties with prejudice. He is a Defendant in a lawsuit arising out of Charleston County, Wilburt A. Siegel v. James Island Public Service District, et al. The Plaintiff was pro se and alleged that he was mistreated by the Court when held in contempt. The matter is now in Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiff appealed the Federal District Court's decision to dismiss this action. He is a Defendant, along with the Supreme Court, in Arthur W. Keels v. State of South Carolina, et al. He is being represented by the Attorney General's office in this action, and they have not advised him of the status of the case lately. In his opinion, it is frivolous.

33.     His last physical was July 17, 1992, by Dr. Frank J. Biggers, #2 Medical Park, Suite 201, Walterboro, South Carolina 29488

34.     Hospitalized: In April of 1989, he had surgery because of a ruptured appendix and was out of work for approximately 5 weeks.

35.     He has mild near-sightedness.

43.     Expenditures for candidacy:
The following is an accounting showing funds expended in excess of $100.00 required by Article 8 of "The Ethics, Government Accountability, and Campaign Reform Act of 1991":
1-7-92         Letters sent to all Senators & Representatives by candidate - $49.88
1-22-92     Letters sent to all Senators & Representatives by others -$49.88
10-12-92     Miscellaneous letters by candidate as of 10-12-92 - $12.76
1-7-93         Miscellaneous letters by candidate as of 1-7-93 - $17.11
TOTAL:     $129.63
The following is an update accounting of funds expended after January 7, 1993:
2/4/93         Address stickers from S. C. Bar - $17.10
2/5/93         Miscellaneous letters sent by candidate - $49.59
3/23/93     Miscellaneous letters sent by candidate - $3.19
3/23/93     Phone calls by candidate - $111.84
TOTAL:     $311.35

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association and Colleton County Bar Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Bethel United Methodist Church and Clemson Alumni Association

50.     He knows of no information that would reflect upon him adversely and feels that he has the character, integrity and temperament to fulfill this position.

52.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Michael G. Davenport, Senior Banking Executive
NationsBank
520 North Jefferies Boulevard
Walterboro, SC 29488
(b)     Walton J. McLeod, Jr., Esquire
McLeod, Fraser & Cone
111 E. Washington Street, P. O. Drawer 230, Walterboro, SC 29488
(c)     John Hamilton Smith, Esquire
Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale
28 Broad Street, P. O. Box 993
Charleston, SC 29401
(d)     D. Reece Williams, III, Esquire
Robinson, McFadden & Moore, P.C.
1901 Main Street, P. O. Box 944,
Columbia, SC 29202
(e)     John C. Land, III, Esquire

Drawer G
Manning, South Carolina 29102

Q     AND YOU GO OVER, BRING THIS UP-TO-DATE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. RECORDS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE. THAT INCLUDES THE COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF'S AND THE WALTERBORO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF COLLETON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. AND, AGAIN, OUR REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU, BUT THERE ARE TWO CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BROUGHT AGAINST YOU; ONE SUIT STEMMING-- SOMETHING FROM A MALPRACTICE CASE, AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ALL HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. AND WE HAVE NO COMPLAINTS, WE HAVE NO STATEMENTS, NOR DO WE SHOW ANY WITNESSES DESIRING TO TESTIFY. AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. COUICK FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE THE COMMITTEE'S PERMISSION TO HAVE JUDGE HOWELL'S TESTIMONY FROM THE LAST HEARING INCLUDED AS PART OF THE QUESTIONING FOR THIS HEARING TODAY, AND INCLUDE IT VERBATIM TODAY.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
SENATOR MOORE: SO MOVED.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE SHORT, JUST TO BRING JUDGE HOWELL INTO THIS PROCESS TODAY. AND I FEAR, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT I HAVE IS IF WE DON'T ASK A FEW QUESTIONS, I THINK TO SOME DEGREE JUDGE HOWELL IS PREJUDICED IN THAT WE'VE ASKED SOME NEW QUESTIONS SINCE LAST WEEK, AND THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT POSITION, AND WE NEED TO COVER THOSE AREAS. JUDGE, YOU PROVIDED A LIST OF REFERENCES TO THIS COMMITTEE ON YOUR P.D.Q. I UNDERSTAND YOU ALSO PROVIDED A LIST OF ADDITIONAL REFERENCES TO THE BAR ASSOCIATION?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IF YOU WOULD PROVIDE THOSE TO MRS. SATTERWHITE SO THAT WE COULD REVIEW THOSE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE CONTACTED?
A     I WILL BE GLAD TO. AND I AM REMINDED THAT I OWE YOU STRAIGHTENING OUT THAT WAGE STATEMENT.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     ADDING THOSE THINGS, AND I WILL GET THAT TO YOU.
Q     JUDGE, I DID ASK TWO OF THE EARLIER APPLICANTS FOR THIS POSITION WHAT THEIR PLANS WERE IF THEY TOOK EARLY RETIREMENT. I WILL BE CONSISTENT, AND I WILL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION. WOULD YOU INTEND TO PRACTICE LAW PRIVATELY IF YOU WERE ELECTED TO THIS PROVISION, RETIRING AFTER PERHAPS ONE TERM?
A     LIKE THEM, I HAVEN'T PLANNED THAT FAR AHEAD. IT'S A LONG WAYS AWAY FOR ME, AND IF ELECTED TO THIS POSITION, I INTEND TO STAY THERE AS LONG AS I FEEL HEALTHY AND WELL AND ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES.
Q     ONCE AGAIN TO BE CONSISTENT, I WILL ASK YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANY DOMESTIC RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WILL KEEP YOU FROM FULFILLING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS POSITION?
A     I WAS TAKEN BACK BECAUSE I HAD CHILDREN THEIR AGE WHEN I STARTED 14 YEARS AGO. MY CHILDREN WERE 3 AND 6, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MAYBE 12. BUT I HAVE A VERY GOOD WIFE AND SHE WAS ABLE TO HANDLE THE ROOST UNTIL I GOT HOME ON THE WEEKENDS.
Q     JUDGE, IN THE AREA OF PLEDGES, I ASK THIS QUESTION BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW UP FOR A DIFFERENT OFFICE. YOU HAD ANSWERED THIS SAME QUESTION LAST WEEK. HAVE YOU SOUGHT THE PLEDGE OF ANY LEGISLATOR PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THIS SCREENING PROCESS, EVEN THOUGH THE PLEDGE SOUGHT WAS CONDITIONAL UPON YOUR BEING SCREENED THROUGH THIS PROCESS?
A     NO.
Q     HAVE YOU ASKED ANYONE ELSE TO SEEK A PLEDGE UNDER THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS?
A     NO.
Q     ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PLEDGES BEING SOLICITED ON YOUR BEHALF FOR THIS POSITION?
A     NO. AND, OF COURSE, LAST WEEK WE DISCUSSED ALL THAT, AND I TOLD YOU THAT PEOPLE HAVE SUPPORTED ME AND I CONSIDER PLEDGES A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY FROM THE COMMITTEE, AND YOU MADE ME ACUTELY AWARE OF HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT, AND I HAVE CAUTIONED EVERYBODY THAT'S INTERESTED IN MY FUTURE TO BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO SEEK ANY PLEDGES AND TO STAY WITHIN THE COMMITTEE'S FEELINGS OF PLEDGES.
Q     JUDGE, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE WHO HAS PROMISED THEY CAN DELIVER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VOTES IN EITHER HOUSE SHOULD YOU BE SCREENED QUALIFIED BY THIS COMMITTEE?
A     NO.
Q     JUDGE, HOW WOULD THE ROLE OF CHIEF JUDGE FOR WHICH YOU WERE SCREENED LAST WEEK DIFFER FROM ONE OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE POSITIONS? YOUR APPROACH, HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH IT DIFFERENTLY?
A     WELL, IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IN THE RESPECT THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOB. THE CHIEF JUDGE'S JOB IS REALLY A WORKING JOB, IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE JOB, A JOB THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO SET CASES, DOCKET CASES, BE INNOVATIVE IN HOW CASES ARE HEARD, AND TRY TO KEEP THE DOCKET AS CURRENT AS POSSIBLE, AND DEALING WITH COURT PERSONNEL RESPONSIBILITIES. I THINK AS THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE, YOU WOULD SIMPLY BE KEENLY AWARE OF THE EFFORT TO HAVE COLLEGIALITY AMONG THE JUDGES, TRY TO GET ALONG AND TRY TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON ALL MATTERS.
Q     JUDGE, YOU HAVE HEARD THE DISCUSSION ALL DAY ABOUT THE BAR, AND YOU ARE IN ONE OF THE, I GUESS, ENVIABLE POSITIONS, HAVING RECEIVED WELL-QUALIFIED FOR BOTH POSITIONS WHICH YOU SEEK, AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE LOOKING A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH, AND YOU CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR RETICENCE TO DO THAT, BUT THIS COMMITTEE IS, I THINK AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT, SEARCHING FOR SOME WAY TO REACH ACCOMMODATION WITH THE BAR. THEY WANT TO BE FAIR TO CANDIDATES. BUT Y'ALL ARE THE FOLKS WHO HAVE JUST GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND I KNOW IT'S HARD FOR FOLKS TO SPEAK OPENLY, BUT THIS COMMITTEE WANTS TO ENSURE FAIRNESS. THEY WANT TO ENSURE THAT YOU'VE GOT EVERY RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY BE AFFORDED IN SUCH AN IMPORTANT PROCESS AS THIS. GIVE US SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE FOR EITHER THIS COMMITTEE OR FOR THE BAR TO MAKE THIS PROCESS MORE WORKABLE.
A     WELL, I THINK THE BAR REALLY NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT JUST AS THIS COMMITTEE HAS PROGRESSED ETHICALLY AND JUST AS EVERYTHING HAS PROGRESSED IN THE NATURE OF ETHICS BECAUSE WE ARE ALL MORE IN THE EYE OF THE PUBLIC AND WORKING IN THAT FISHBOWL AND MORE ACUTELY AWARE, LAWYERS AREN'T SCARED OF JUDGES ANY MORE. THEY PRETTY WELL HOLD THEIR OWN WITH JUDGES. I THINK THE ANONYMITY, THERE IS NO NEED OF THAT BEING THERE. I THINK THE BAR COULD CONDUCT THEIR SURVEY WITH PEOPLE COMING FORWARD. I DON'T THINK THEY FEAR RETRIBUTION BECAUSE THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS, AND THROUGH THE CANNONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS, AND THROUGH ETHICS LEGISLATION, YOU CAN CONTROL JUDGES THESE DAYS. THERE IS NO MORE THE POWERFUL JUDGES THAT I STARTED PRACTICING UNDER. I THINK WE ALL TREAT ALL LAWYERS ALIKE REGARDLESS OF HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THEM PERSONALLY. YOU DON'T LIKE EVERY LAWYER THAT APPEARS BEFORE YOU. YOU DON'T DISLIKE EVERY LAWYER THAT APPEARS BEFORE YOU. YOU TREAT THEM FAIRLY, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY'RE REPRESENTING THE CLIENT. YOU AREN'T PUNISHING THE LAWYERS IF YOU PUNISH THEM, YOU ARE PUNISHING THE CLIENT. AND I THINK THE BAR OUGHT TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND DO AWAY WITH THE ANONYMOUS NATURE OF THEIR PROCESS. I DON'T THINK --THERE'S NOTHING MORE DETESTABLE THAN AN ANONYMOUS RUMOR ABOUT SOMEBODY. AND IF I HAD GOTTEN THE "UNQUALIFIED" OR "QUALIFIED," I WOULD REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY, AND I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHO SAID IT, SO I COULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND IT. SO POSSIBLY THEY COULD GIVE THAT INFORMATION TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND THIS COMMITTEE GIVE IT TO THE CANDIDATE; AND IF THE CANDIDATE FELT THAT IT WAS UNFOUNDED, LET HIM MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTED TO PURSUE IT, AND IF HE DID, THEN THE COMMITTEE SHOULD REQUIRE THAT TO COME FORWARD, AND IF HE FOUND IT FOUNDED, HE MAY WANT TO CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT RUNNING FOR THIS JOB.
Q     JUDGE, ALONG THIS SAME LINE, YOU SAY THAT YOU--WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU RECEIVED TWO WELL-QUALIFIED REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE, BUT I GUESS WELL-QUALIFIED DOESN'T NECESSARILY EQUATE WITH BEING PERFECT; SO, I TAKE IT THAT WHEN THE COMMITTEE CAME AND REPORTED ITS FINDINGS TO YOU, THEY VERY WELL MAY WELL HAVE TOLD YOU THINGS THAT FOLKS SAID ABOUT YOU THAT WERE NOT PERFECT. IF THAT WAS THE CASE, DID THEY GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AND RESPOND IN A PREPARED SENSE, RATHER THAN JUST OPERATING KIND OF OFF-THE-CUFF AND SAYING THAT ISN'T TRUE?
A     Y'ALL HAVE REALLY GOT ME LOOKING THE GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH.

(LAUGHTER.)

A     I MET WITH THE COMMITTEE AND IT LASTED MAYBE 10 MINUTES. THEY SAID, "NOBODY SAID ANYTHING BAD ABOUT YOU. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING TO US?" AND I SAID NO.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: 10 MINUTES.
Q     JUDGE, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF YOUR PERSONS THAT YOU LISTED AS REFERENCES AS NOT BEING CONTACTED?
A     SOME OF THEM HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY GOT A LETTER THAT THEY WOULD BE CONTACTED AND WERE NOT.
Q     THEY WOULD BE CONTACTED, AND THEY ACTUALLY WERE NOT CONTACTED.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: HE SAID THEY WERE?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: HE SAID THEY WEREN'T, THEY WEREN'T CONTACTED.
MR. COUICK: THESE WERE THE REFERENCES THAT HE HAD SUPPLIED TO THE BAR AND THEY RECEIVED LETTERS AND THE REFERENCE THERE IS THAT THEY WOULD BE CONTACTED AND THEY ACTUALLY WERE NOT CONTACTED.
A     AND ONE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT HE HAD DIFFICULTY IN GETTING IN TOUCH WITH ONE; BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OTHERS, I BELIEVE, THAT ALSO MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE NOT CONTACTED. BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO REALIZE, TOO, IN FAIRNESS TO THAT COMMITTEE, THEY WERE UNDER ABOUT A WEEK-AND-A-HALF'S TIME FRAME, TOO, IN TRYING TO WORK WITH US. THE LETTER I RECEIVED WAS "FURNISH THESE FIVE NAMES BY RETURN MAIL." I FURNISHED THEM BY RETURN MAIL AND IT WAS IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE MET. I WAS HOLDING COURT IN LEXINGTON AND MET THEM AT A BUILDING IN COLUMBIA AND WE HAD OUR MEETING. AT THE VERY SAME TIME THEY WERE HAVING THEIR MEETING, THE BIG COMMITTEE WAS MEETING ABOUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS SITUATION.
Q     JUDGE, SENATOR MCCONNELL HAS ASKED ME TO ENTER ONTO THE RECORD THAT THE BAR WAS PROVIDED WITH THE SUMMARIES OF YOUR INFORMATION SOME TIME BACK. WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO FIND THE ACTUAL DATE IN A MINUTE. SO, IF THEY REPRESENTED TO YOU THAT THEY ONLY HAD A WEEK WITHIN WHICH TO OPERATE---
A     I'M GUESSING NOW. I KNEW THE TIME FRAME AND IT WAS A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THEY DIDN'T REPRESENT EVER THAT--I WAS KIND OF GUESSING AND PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT. BUT WHEN I RECEIVED THE LETTER, IT WAS A VERY-- MAYBE TWO WEEKS AT THE OUTSIDE BEFORE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO. AND I COULD GET YOU THE EXACT DATE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO DO THAT.
Q     I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD REFLECTED THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAD TRIED TO BE COOPERATIVE BY PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
A     AS SOON AS THE FILING STARTED, THEY GOT THE INFORMATION AND AS SOON AS THEY GOT IT, THEY GOT IN TOUCH WITH US. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WAS DILATORY; BUT IN JUST A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO ACCOMPLISH A VERY LOT, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK TO 20 OR 30 PEOPLE IN ADDITION TO 5, OR 30 OR 40 IN ADDITION TO 5.
Q     JUDGE, YOU ARE A VERY POPULAR JUDGE, NOT ONLY AMONG PEOPLE WHO APPEAR BEFORE YOU, BUT ALSO AMONG OTHER JUDGES BY REPUTATION. YOU HEARD MY QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT WHETHER THE BENCH REALLY OUGHT TO BE KIND OF A SELF-SUSTAINING FRATERNITY WHERE THE JUDGES MORE OR LESS PICK WHO OUGHT TO BE REELECTED OR ELECTED VERSUS THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. JUST ASKING FOR YOUR COMMENTS, HAVE YOU CONTACTED ANY JUDGE SEEKING THEIR ASSISTANCE AND HELPING OUT WITH THIS PROCESS? ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY JUDGES THAT HAVE SOUGHT THAT ROLE IN YOUR CAMPAIGN OR IN OTHER CAMPAIGNS?
A     I, OF COURSE, DISCUSSED IT WITH MANY OF MY FRIENDS WHO ARE JUDGES BECAUSE ONCE YOU ARE A JUDGE, YOU--NOW THAT THE RESTRICTIONS ARE SUCH WITH THE BAR, YOU FIND THAT YOUR FRIENDS ARE JUDGES. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU TALK TO. OF COURSE, I HAVE COUNSELED WITH THEM AND TALKED TO THEM AND HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED BY THEM IN REGARD TO THIS---
Q     IF I COULD JUST---
A     IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE CANONS FOR ONE OF THEM TO BE IN CONTACT ANYWAY.
Q     SO ASIDE FROM THE NORMAL SOCIAL CONVERSATION WHERE YOU DISCUSS THE PROCESS AND JUST DISCUSS THE COMMON INTEREST Y'ALL HAVE IN ELECTIONS, YOU HAVE NOT SOUGHT THEIR ASSISTANCE---
A     NO, SIR.
Q     ---IN--(PAUSE)---
A     WELL, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO ME AND I'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH A CERTAIN--SAY ANYTHING THAT COMES UP THAT I FEEL THAT I NEED A FRIEND TO DISCUSS IT WITH, I CALL A JUDGE BECAUSE THEY ARE MY FRIENDS, BUT I HAVEN'T SOUGHT THEIR COUNSEL IN REGARD TO WHAT TO DO IN A POLITICAL SENSE.
Q     AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT, JUDGE, IS HAVE YOU SOUGHT THEIR ASSISTANCE IN GETTING READY TO GET PLEDGES, I GUESS IS WHAT IT GOES TOWARD?
A     (SHOOK HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE OF JUDGE HOWELL.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND IT'S THE SAME QUESTION THAT I HAD FOR JUDGE CONNOR, AND THAT RELATES TO SCHEDULING YOUR COURT; AND MY QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU HAVE FOUND ANY TENSION BETWEEN YOURSELF AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH REGARDING YOUR CANDIDACY HERE AND HOW IT MIGHT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO CARRY OUT YOUR DUTIES AS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE?
A     OH, I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. EVERYBODY ON THE BENCH IS ACUTELY AWARE OF WHAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GET ELECTED IN THIS PROCESS, AND THEY REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE HERE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN. AND COURT ADMINISTRATION IS VERY UNDERSTANDING IN THAT REGARD. THEY HAVE ASSIGNED ME IN THIS AREA THIS MONTH, AND, SO, THAT WILL GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP HERE AT LUNCH, AND COME UP HERE BEFORE COURT STARTS AND AFTER COURT ADJOURNS, OR ANY TIME A CASE SETTLES AND I CAN GET A BREAK. SO I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE OTHER JUDGES BEGRUDGE US THAT US BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT, AND THEY MAY GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR, SENATOR, GO AHEAD.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     JUDGE HOWELL, SINCE YOU WERE--ARE A CANDIDATE FOR THE CHIEF JUDGE AND THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE, DID YOUR BAR COMMITTEE INTERVIEW HAPPEN ONE TIME FOR BOTH?
A     YES, SIR, ONE TIME.
Q     HOW MANY PEOPLE INTERVIEWED YOU?
A     THREE.
Q     DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY WERE FROM?
A     YES, SIR, MYRTLE BEACH, CHARLESTON, AND ORANGEBURG.
Q     WERE YOU GIVEN ANY DETAILS AS TO THE PROJECTED PUBLIC RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION?
A     I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO RECALL EXACTLY WHEN I WAS ADVISED. I THINK THE LAST THAT WE GOT WAS THE LETTER THAT SET FORTH THE PROCEDURES THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWED, AND THAT LETTER INCLUDED THE RULES THAT JUDGE CONNOR REFERRED TO, THE BAR ASSOCIATION RULES. AND MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE GIVEN THE INFORMATION BEFORE IT WAS MADE PUBLIC, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD THEN--AND THIS JUST MAY HAVE BEEN MY IMPRESSION--WOULD INFORM THE CANDIDATES. IF IT WAS ADVERSE, THEN THE CANDIDATE WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO REACT IN HOWEVER ANYONE WOULD REACT BEFORE IT WAS MADE PUBLIC. THAT WAS JUST MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT WOULD WORK.
Q     MINE, TOO.
A     AND I THINK REALLY THE INTENT OF THE PROCESS WAS REALLY GOOD. IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE TIME FRAME, WHICH IS NOBODY'S FAULT, ALL OF US BEING REAL BUSY, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND EVERYBODY ELSE, MAY HAVE CAUSED IT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:

Q     YOU KNOW, THE TIME FRAME--THE TIME FRAME THAT THIS COMMITTEE OPERATES UNDER, IS IT ADEQUATE SO FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE SOME CHANGES MADE AS FAR AS YOU FOLKS APPLYING FOR POSITIONS? IS IT TOO LENGTHY, OR IS IT TOO SHORT, OR WHAT IS THE--
A     I THINK IT'S FINE ONCE IT GOT STARTED. I REALLY AND TRULY WISH THE COMMITTEE HAD GOTTEN ORGANIZED EARLY IN JANUARY AND WE WOULD HAVE ALL THIS BEHIND US NOW. AND THAT WASN'T POSSIBLE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE REASONS, AND I AM NOT COMPLAINING. OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK ONCE IT GETS ROLLING, I THINK EVERYTHING IS WITHIN A FAIR FRAMEWORK.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NONE VOICED.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: LET ME JUST SAY BEFORE WE GO, TO PUT ON THE RECORD, BACK AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE TAKING THE APPLICATIONS, YOUR APPLICATIONS AND THE OTHERS, THE BAR WANTED ALL OF THE MATERIAL, AS I RECALL, IN EACH FILE. THE POSITION OF THIS COMMITTEE WAS THAT CERTAIN PARTS OF THAT MATERIAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL, AND, OF COURSE, TO RELEASE IT, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AND PROBABLY HAVE TO CONFER WITH THE CANDIDATES; BUT IN PARTICULAR, WE FELT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE BAR OPERATE ON AS MUCH ORIGINAL INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THAT WOULD HELP SUPPLEMENT AND BROADEN THE INVESTIGATION. IF ONE WAS A MIRROR OF THE OTHERS INITIALLY WITH OUR FILES, THEN, OF COURSE, THEY WOULD NOT BE OPERATING OFF OF ORIGINAL INFORMATION. BUT THE SUMMARIES WHICH WE ARE OPERATING FROM TODAY, WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM, HAD BEEN AVAILABLE SINCE APRIL THE 5TH, AND BECAUSE WE WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE 15TH AND THEY STILL HAD NOT COME OVER AND GOTTEN THE SUMMARIES, I WROTE A LETTER ON THE 15TH, WHICH SAID, "AS OF APRIL THE 5TH, 1993, THE SUMMARIES OF THE JUDICIAL CANDIDATES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH WILL BE HELD ON APRIL THE 22ND, 1993 AND APRIL 29, 1993 WERE COMPLETED AND WERE AVAILABLE TO YOU. IN TALKING WITH BARBARA, I FIND THAT YOU HAVE NOT PICKED UP YOUR COPIES OF THE SUMMARIES AND I WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THESE IF THEY ARE NEEDED." AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT JUST SAYS, "PLEASE, CALL BARBARA 734-2753 AND SHE CAN ARRANGE FOR THESE TO BE PICKED UP IN HER OFFICE." THE PURPOSE, OF COURSE, OF THIS WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO COOPERATE. I HAD INSTRUCTED THE STAFF AFTER CONSULTATION WITH VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND OUR DISCUSSIONS--SO WE DID MAKE OUR--OUR STUFF WAS AVAILABLE, AND IF THEY HAD A TIME COMPRESS, I JUST CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING AND WHAT YOU WEREN'T SAYING.

(LAUGHTER.)

SENATOR MCCONNELL: BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS ON THE RECORD, AGAIN, FOR ALL OF THE MEMBERS. THANK YOUR, SIR. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
JUDGE HOWELL: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Y'ALL, WE HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE WE HAD SCHEDULED FOR TODAY. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT WE COME BACK AT 10:00 O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY TO RESUME. IS THAT IN AGREEMENT?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: YES.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: WITH THAT, WE WILL RECESS UNTIL 10:00 O'CLOCK TUESDAY. (WHEREUPON, THE SCREENING WAS RECESSED AT 4:30 P.M. UNTIL 10:00 A.M., TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1993.)

APPENDIX
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR
Rules of Procedure
STRUCTURE OF COMMITTEE

The Committee shall be composed of ten active members of the South Carolina Bar - two from each of the four judicial regions and two at large, each appointed by the President of the South Carolina Bar with the approval of the South Carolina Bar Board of Governors. The Committee shall represent a cross section of the Bar of this State with due consideration given to experience in trial and appellate advocacy. The Chairman of the Committee will be appointed by the President of the South Carolina Bar from the Committee membership.

Region I -         Composed of 7th, 10th, 13th and 16th Circuits

Region II -         Composed of 5th, 6th, 8th and 11th Circuits

Region III -     Composed of 3rd, 4th, 12th and 15th Circuits

Region IV -     Composed of 1st, 2nd, 9th and 14th Circuits

TERMS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Five members of the original Committee will be appointed for four years. Five members of the original Committee will be appointed for three years. The Chairman will serve for two years and will be eligible for reappointment for an additional term in the discretion of the President of the South Carolina Bar. Thereafter, Committee members will be appointed for terms of three years but will be eligible for reappointment for a second term.

PREAMBLE

The South Carolina Bar expressly approves the evaluation criteria used by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Judiciary. This criteria states:

"The Committee's evaluation of prospective nominees to these courts is directed to professional qualifications - integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.

Integrity is self-defining. The prospective nominee's character and general reputation in the legal community are investigated, as are his or her industry and diligence.

Professional competence encompasses such qualities as intellectual capacity, judgment, writing and analytical ability, knowledge of the law and breadth of professional experience.

The Committee believes that ordinarily a prospective nominee to the bench should have been admitted to the bar for at least twelve years. In evaluating experience, the Committee recognizes that women and members of large numbers only in recent years and that their opportunities for advancement in the profession may have been limited. Substantial courtroom and trial experience (as a lawyer or a trial judge) is important for prospective nominees to both the appellate and the trial courts. Additional experience which is similar to court trial work--such as appearing before or serving on administrative agencies or arbitration boards, or teaching trial advocacy or other clinical law school courses--is considered in evaluating a prospective nominee's trial experience qualifications. Significant evidence of distinguished accomplishment in the field of law may compensate for a prospective nominee's lack of substantial courtroom experience.

Recognizing that an appellate judge deals primarily with records, briefs, appellate advocates and colleagues (in contrast to witnesses, parties, jurors, live testimony and the theater of the courtroom), the Committee may place somewhat less emphasis on the importance of trial experience as a qualification for the appellate courts. On the other hand, although scholarly qualities are necessary for the trial courts, the Committee believes that appellate court nominees should possess an especially high degree of scholarship and academic talent and an unusual degree to overall excellence. The abilities to write lucidly and persuasively, to harmonize a body of law and to give guidance to the trial courts for future cases are considered in the evaluation of prospective nominees for the appellate courts.

The Committee considers that civic activities and public service are valuable experience, but that such activity and service are not a substitute for significant experience in the practice of law, whether that experience be in the private or public sector.

In investigating judicial temperament, the Committee considers the prospective nominee's compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, sensitivity, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice.

Finally, the prospective nominee's health is considered. The Committee believes that the public is entitled to the appointment to the judiciary of persons who are able to render long and vigorous service"

RULES OF PROCEDURE

RULE I:     DEFINITION OF RATINGS OF JUDICIAL CANDIDATES TO BE USED BY THE COMMITTEE IN REPORTING TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SECTION 1.     CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES
a.     Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes considered to be worthy of special note as indicative of a superior fitness to perform the judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.
b.     Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes considered to equip a person to perform the judicial function adequately and satisfactorily.
c.     Not Qualified: Possessing less than the minimum qualities and attributes considered necessary to perform the judicial function adequately and satisfactorily.

SECTION 2.     APPELLATE JUDGES
a.     Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes considered to be worthy of special note as indicative of a superior fitness to perform the judicial function with a high degree of skill, effectiveness and distinction.
b.     Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes considered to be indicative of a superior fitness to perform the judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.
c.     Not Qualified: Possessing less than the qualities and attributes listed above.

RULE II:     PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMITTEE

SECTION 1.
Two or more Committee members shall be assigned to investigate and report to the Committee any candidate for the circuit or family court bench. Three or more Committee members shall be assigned to investigate and report to the Committee any candidate for the appellate bench. One Committee member shall be appointed Lead Committee Member. That Committee member shall contact his or her co-members for purposes of assuring that the rules of the Committee are complied with and to set up procedures to facilitate the investigation and reduce duplication of effort. Prior to the commencement of the investigation and the contacting of informants, the candidates shall be notified of the pendency of the investigation.

SECTION 2.
a.     Upon receiving the name of a candidate, the Committee members charged with investigating the qualifications of the candidate shall request of the candidate a reasonable number of names of persons who are likely to have knowledge of the candidate's qualifications, and who will be contacted for interviews.
b.     Upon receiving the name of a candidate, the Committee members charged with investigating the qualifications of the candidate shall prepare a list of persons who are reasonably likely to have knowledge of the candidate's qualifications, and with who interviews will be sought. Each such list should reflect a broad cross-section of the names of attorneys in the counties and the area of law in which the candidate practices.
c.     Absent unusual circumstances, the Committee members charged with investigating the qualifications of the candidate shall seek interviews with to the following:
(1)     Thirty (30) names selected at random from the list prepared pursuant to subdivision b of this section; and
(2)     All members of the bench in each county in which the candidate practices; and
(3)     All names listed in the candidate's "Personal Data Questionnaire" and all other persons whose names are submitted by the candidate.
d.     The goal of the Committee shall be that reports will be based upon a minimum of thirty (30) interviews indicating knowledge of the candidate. Any Committee member who receives negative or adverse comments concerning a candidate shall make reasonable efforts to contact the source or sources of such comment and report to the Committee the results of that contact.
e.     If, as a consequence of unusual circumstances, the Committee members charged with investigating the qualifications of the candidate are not able to fully comply with this section, the report to the General Assembly shall state the unusual circumstances which prevented compliance.

SECTION 3.
All Committee members charged with reporting to the Committee should personally interview the candidate, jointly if feasible. The interview should not be the first step in the investigation. Thus, the personal interview with the candidate shall be held after a majority of the interviews provided in Section 2(c) have been conducted but leaving sufficient time prior to the reporting date for the candidate's rebuttal of adverse comments. The subject matter of the substantial and credible adverse allegations received regarding the candidate's health, physical or mental condition, or moral turpitude which, unless rebutted, would be determinative of the candidate's unsuitability for judicial office, should be disclosed to the candidate, as specifically as possible without any breach of confidentiality of these rules and procedures, not less than two days before the interview. At the interview, such Committee members should discuss with the candidate, among other factors, his or her industry, judicial temperament, honesty, objectivity, community respect, integrity, health, ability, and legal experience. The discussion should be as specific as possible without any breach of confidentiality as provided for in these rules and procedures, and should include both positive and negative information. The purpose of an interview is to provide a candidate with a reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse information and to present any additional information which may support his or her qualification.
After the interview, a candidate may submit to the Committee additional information or material in response to adverse allegations raised in the interview; the interview should be scheduled, when practicable, at least two to three days before the Committee meeting when the ratings of the candidate are to be determined. For good cause, and with the consent of the candidate, the Committee may waive compliance with these time requirements. No provision of these rules shall be construed as permitting the disclosure to the candidate of information from which the candidate may infer the source, and no information shall either be disclosed to the candidate nor be obtainable by any process which would jeopardize the confidentiality of communications from persons whose opinion has been sought on the candidate's qualifications.

SECTION 4.
The form and manner of any individual Committee member's report to the Committee shall be left to the discretion of each Committee member. However, each Committee member shall report the number of interviews sought and held and the numerical breakdown of ratings. Except in very unusual circumstances, reports will not be given via telephone conference calls.

SECTION 5.
Candidates will not be interviewed by the entire Committee, nor will they be allowed to appear before the Committee in connection with their nomination.

SECTION 6.
If a candidate whom the Committee has recently evaluated and found not qualified offers or is nominated again for a judicial position, the Committee shall vote again upon the qualifications of the person. Prior to voting, and at its meeting following receipt of the resubmittal, the Committee shall proceed, as follows:
a.     The Committee will determine at the time whether it will investigate further or rely upon its earlier investigation. In determining whether to reinvestigate or confirm its prior action, the Committee shall consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(1)     whether there may be facts or information not previously investigated or concerning acts or occurrences since the previous investigation; and
(2)     the extent to which additional facts or information would aid the Committee as to determination of a material issue; and
(3)     the extent to which affording a candidate a further opportunity to rebut adverse information would assist the Committee in determining a material issue or merely be cumulative; and
(4)     the nature and extent of the previous investigation and its timeliness.
b.     A previously completed investigation should not be deemed timely if more than twelve (12) months have lapsed between the time of the completion of the prior investigation and the filing for the subsequent judicial position.
c.     Before voting, the Committee shall make application to the South Carolina Supreme Court for a current disciplinary record check pursuant to Rule V, Section 4.
d.     If the Committee determines that it will conduct further investigation and evaluation, it will decide whether the investigating Committee members shall be those who conducted the initial investigation or whether new investigators are to be named.

SECTION 7.
a.     When a candidate offers or is nominated for judge of an appellate court and a report is made to the General Assembly following the investigation and evaluation, and that candidate subsequently offers or is nominated for judge of the circuit court or family court, the Committee may conduct a summary consideration and rate the person as a candidate for the circuit court or family court based on the previously completed evaluation if the information contained therein is sufficient. In determining whether such information is sufficient, the Committee shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 6 of this rule. If such information is insufficient, or if the rating of a summary consideration is "not qualified," a separate and full evaluation shall then be made of the person as a candidate for the other court position.
b.     When a candidate offers or is nominated for judge of the Supreme Court and a report rating the candidate "qualified" or better is made to the General Assembly following the investigation and evaluation and that candidate, within a reasonable time thereafter, offers or is nominated for judge of the Court of Appeals, the name of the candidate shall be deemed rated based on the previously completed evaluation.

SECTION 8.
In reporting the opinion of the Committee regarding the qualifications of candidates, the numerical count of the Committee's vote shall not be stated.

SECTION 9.
Candidates generally will be reported on in the order in which their names are given to the Committee. When it is requested that a candidate be considered out of order, the reasons therefore shall be stated to the Chair who will then determine whether it will so consider the candidate.

SECTION 10.
The evaluation of a judicial candidate submitted to the Committee shall be based only on the individual merit of that particular candidate. The criteria for establishing the merit of a candidate shall be based among other appropriate factors on industry, judicial temperament, honesty, objectivity, community respect, integrity, health, ability and legal experience as it more fully set forth in the Preamble.

SECTION 11.
The Chairman of the Committee or his designee shall report the Committee's rating to the judicial candidate and to the President of the South Carolina Bar. Thereafter, the Chairman shall report the Committee's rating to the Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Screening of the General Assembly (Judicial Screening Committee) or such other body as is then designated to screen judicial candidates. This report may be received in executive session as provided in Rule III, Section 1.

RULE III:     CONFIDENTIALITY

SECTION 1.
This rule prohibits disclosure of any information of any nature except the final rating of the judicial candidate, to anyone other than the Judicial Screening Committee. The chairman of the Committee or the chairman's designee shall report the final rating of the judicial candidate to the Judicial Screening Committee. If the Judicial Screening Committee requests it, the chairman and/or the chairman's designee(s) may report to the Judicial Screening Committee in executive session on the reasons for the Committee's evaluation of the candidate. Such a report must preserve the confidentiality of the Committee's sources. Designated representatives of the Committee shall not answer any question from the Judicial Screening Committee which may jeopardize the confidentiality of the Committee's sources. No other member of the Committee will comment in any way.

SECTION 2.
All phases of the Committee's activity, i.e., the results of interviews with any respondents, the vote or comments of any individual Committee member or the vote of the Committee as a whole, as well as any other matters connected with the investigation are absolutely confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone other than another Committee member or an appropriate staff member of the Bar. No copy or duplicate of writings connected with the activities or the Committee shall be distributed to the Board of Governors or the General Assembly, except the final rating submitted to the General Assembly.

SECTION 3.
A Committee member, in respect of persons whose names are submitted to the Committee for consideration of their qualifications for appointment to the bench, shall not disclose to others in any manner, except for the purposes of confidential inquiry in connection with the Committee's consideration of such person:
a.     The names of any such person whose names are submitted to the Committee; and
b.     Whether any such person's name has or has not been submitted to the Committee, or any information regarding when the candidate will be considered by the Committee; and
c.     The discussion, deliberations or actions of the Committee concerning any such person; and
d.     Any information concerning such person obtained during investigation or at a meeting of the Committee nor his or her own opinion concerning that person; and
e.     The "Personal Data Questionnaires" of persons whose names have been submitted to the Committee.

SECTION 4.
Upon transmittal of the final rating of a candidate to the General Assembly each member or former member of the Committee shall deliver to the South Carolina Bar staff all papers, files and documents of any kind relating to the candidate and those items delivered shall be immediately destroyed.

SECTION 5.
Members of the Board of Governors, designees of the Board of Governors and employees and agents of the Bar are prohibited from disclosure of confidential information received by them in the same manner as provided in this rule for Committee members.

SECTION 6.
Each member of the Committee shall take, subscribe to and file the oath of office as required by the Board of Governors. The oath shall be filed with the Secretary of the Bar.

SECTION 7.
Upon a claim of breach of confidentiality, a three-member Special Committee shall be appointed by the Board of Governors to investigate such claim. If the claim is found to have merit, a report shall be made to the entire Committee and the President of the Bar. The report shall include a recommendation as to whether or not the Committee shall request the Board of Governors to remove the member or members from the Committee. The Committee shall also report the failure of any Committee member to cooperate in the investigation of the claim. No member of the Committee against whom a claim of breach of confidentiality is brought shall serve on a Special Committee investigating said claim.

RULE IV:     CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SECTION 1.
This rule is intended to establish standards and procedures to assist the Committee and its members in avoiding conflicts of interest, bias or prejudice that may interfere with the Committee's ability to discharge its duties.

SECTION 2.
If a Committee member has or has had any significant familial, professional, business, social, political, or other relationship, either adversarial or allied, direct or indirect, with a candidate, he or she shall immediately disclose to the Committee Chair the nature and circumstances of the relationship.

SECTION 3.
If the Committee member having such a relationship determines that it would unduly influence his or her consideration of the candidate's qualifications, the Committee member shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in the investigation, report, deliberation, and ultimate evaluation of the candidate involved in the conflict and refrain from attempting to influence other Committee member's evaluations of the candidates.

SECTION 4.
Factors to be considered in determining whether the relationship requires disqualification include remoteness in time of the relationship, duration of the relationship (transitory, recurring, or long term), and the extent to which the relationship is distinguishable from a casual, incidental contact.

SECTION 5.
If a Committee member determines that a particular relationship does not require disqualification, and the Chair determines that the relationship does require disqualification, the Chair's determination shall prevail.

SECTION 6.
A disqualified Committee member is not precluded from providing information concerning a candidate in the way such information would be provided by one requested to provide information by interview; provided, however, that a Committee member providing information pursuant to this provision may not be identified during the hearing.

SECTION 7.
As a condition of appointment, each Committee member agrees that:
a.     During his or her service on the Committee, he or she will abstain from endorsing or participating in any judicial candidate's campaign for office, and will refrain from appearing before or voting on any other committee or commission involved in the judicial selection process; and
b.     Service on the Committee results in a relationship between Committee members that may create a conflict of interest if Committee member who have served together later evaluate one another. Therefore, no Committee member shall offer for or accept a nomination for a South Carolina judicial position while a member of the Committee and for a minimum of one year after leaving the Committee.

RULE V:     INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE

SECTION 1.
Staff shall advise all members to the Committee which Committee member shall be Lead Committee Member for conducting the investigation of each candidate and which Committee members are assigned to the investigation.

SECTION 2.
All members of the Committee shall receive from staff all biographical material received from the Joint Legislative Screening Committee concerning all the candidates, as well as the candidate's current "Personal Data Questionnaire."

SECTION 3.
When the "Personal Data Questionnaire" pertaining to said candidate is more than one year old at the time the investigation commences, staff shall obtain an updated "Personal Data Questionnaire" from the candidate.

SECTION 4.
The Committee shall make application to the South Carolina Supreme Court to obtain information from the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards concerning discipline of a candidate and/or complaints filed concerning a candidate. Notwithstanding designation of a communication as a complaint, if it is determined that such complaint is based upon unfounded allegations, it shall not be deemed to be a complaint of record against a member of the Bar for purposes of consideration in connection with the appointment of the member to any position. The Committee shall be bound by all rules of confidentiality applying to grievances.

RULE VI:     APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Committee members, including the Chairman, are appointed by and serve at the will and pleasure of the Board of Governors and may be removed from the office with or without good cause.

RULE VII:     AMENDMENTS OF RULES

The Committee may adopt, with approval of the Board of Governors, amendments to these rules.

RULE VIII:     SEVERABILITY

If any provision of these rules and procedure or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of these rules and procedures, to the extent that they can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which they are held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this extent the provisions of these rules and procedures are severable.

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING OF
MAY 4, 1993

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: I'M GOING TO CONVENE THE MEETING OF THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME. FOR THE RECORD, IT'S ABOUT 10:06. THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE IS PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975 REQUIRING THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES BUT, RATHER, TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR POSITIONS ON THE BENCH ARE, IN OUR JUDGMENT, QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITIONS. THE INQUIRY WHICH WE UNDERTAKE IS A THOROUGH ONE. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EVERY CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INCLUDING COURTROOM RECORDS. A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS IS REQUIRED. WE RECEIVE A CREDIT REPORT. WE RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING, AND FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES. THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS THE PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH, AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCREENING CANDIDATES FOR SEAT #1 ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. I AM INFORMED BY COUNSEL THAT THERE ARE SOME MATTERS WE NEED TO TAKE UP IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO DO I HEAR A MOTION THAT WE GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: SO MOVED.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WE'LL GO ACROSS THE HALL AND IT WILL BE ACROSS THE HALL. NOW THAT IT'S MOVED WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. THERE BEING NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL MOVE IMMEDIATELY INTO A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: AYE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ALL OPPOSED, SIGNIFY BY SAYING NAY.

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THE AYES HAVE IT. WE'RE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

(EXECUTIVE SESSION; 10:07 A.M. TO 10:35 A.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: OKAY. WE'LL GO BACK ON THE RECORD AT THIS TIME AND COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION DEALING WITH SOME LEGAL MATTERS. WE WILL MOVE TO OUR FIRST APPLICANT FOR THE MORNING, MR. CHARLES BEDFORD SIMMONS--JR., I'M SORRY. GOOD MORNING, AND SORRY TO KEEP YOU WAITING.
JUDGE SIMMONS: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

(WITNESS SWORN; 10:36 A.M.)

WHEREUPON, CHARLES B. SIMMONS, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     I UNDERSTAND THIS IS YOUR FIRST SCREENING.
A     ABOUT THIS POSITION, THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     YES, SIR, I SURE HAVE.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     IT SHALL BE DONE SO IN THE TRANSCRIPT AT THIS POINT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Charles Bedford Simmons, Jr.
Home Address:                                     Business Address:
11 W. Hillcrest                                     Suite 208, County Courthouse
Greenville, 29609                             Greenville, SC 29601

2.     He was born in Greenville, South Carolina on December 4, 1956. He is presently 36 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married on April 26, 1986, to Claudia Elizabeth Spencer. He has two children: Charles B., III, age 4, and Elizabeth Spencer, age 2.

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended Spartanburg Methodist College, 1975-1977, Associate of Arts in Criminal Justice, magna cum laude; East Tennessee State University, 1977-1979, Bachelor of Science in Political Science and Criminal Justice, magna cum laude; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1979-1982, Juris Doctorate.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He generally attends more "CLE" courses than required. He has taken several courses at the National Judicial College since he came on the bench. He has also implemented and helped organize the first CLE specifically for Masters in Equity.

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
He has lectured at CLE programs for the Greenville Bar, spoken at the S. C. Bar's "Law School for Non-Lawyers," and will be speaking at the Law School's "Bridge the Gap" program for new lawyers this summer. He has also lectured law school classes at USC and has appeared on television as a panelist to discuss different legal topics. He also teaches part-time in the paralegal program at Greenville Technical College.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He served as law clerk to the Honorable C. Victor Pyle, Jr., from 1982-1983. He then joined and became a partner in Carter, Smith Law Firm from 1983 through 1985. His practice was general litigation, primarily civil. From 1986 to 1989, he was a partner in Wilkins, Nelson, Kittredge and Simmons. He continued practicing general litigation, while also doing significant amounts of domestic law. In 1989, he became Master in Equity for Greenville County, where he has served up to the present time.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -
State -                     100%
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 60%
Criminal -
Domestic - 40%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 50%
Non-jury - 50%
He would estimate that he was sole or lead counsel in the majority of the cases. He was associate counsel in approximately one-third of the cases.

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)     Owens v. Ruth Construction Co. This was an unusually complicated Worker's Compensation claim involving a closed head injury received by his client, Bobby Owens. There were significant medical and psychological issues. The case was tried in front of a single Commissioner, the employer then appealed to the full Commission, and later to the Circuit Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the case was settled for approximately $150,000.00.
(b)     Momani v. Van Surdam, 296 S.C. 409, 373 S.E.2d 691 (App. 1988). The significant nature of this case is that it clarified the exact standards required under Rule 60, of what was, at that time, the new South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court ruled that his client, Mr. Momani, could not file an independent action to attack a prior judgment. On appeal, the trial court was reversed, and his client's action allowed to proceed.
(c)     Malone v. Malone, 88-DR-23-32. This was a very complicated and bitterly contested divorce and custody action. It involved extensive economic evaluations and significant amounts of psychological testimony concerning the best interests of the minor children. After two full days of trial, the Family Court Judge rendered what they considered a very favorable decision which was significantly more than the pre-trial settlement proposal.
(d)     Bolden v. Dan River, Inc., 88-CP-23-1513. This was a complicated and novel issue concerning post traumatic stress disorder. It required literally hundreds of hours of work on behalf of his client, Jimmie Bolden. After the Circuit Court affirmed the Worker's Compensation Commission's decision finding coverage, the case was settled on appeal in excess of $100,000.00.
(e)     Ramella v. Ramella, J. R. #110041. He represented Mrs. Ramella in a divorce action against her husband. It was a substantial case involving millions of dollars in assets, most of which were tied up in closely held corporations. The case required hundreds of hours of working with CPA's and economists in order to determine and value assets. Shortly after trial began, Mr. Ramella agreed to their settlement proposal.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)     Arvai v. Shaw, 286 S.C. 357, 334 S.E.2d 297 (App. 1985).

(b)     Momani v. Van Surdam, 296 S.C. 409, 373 S.E.2d 691 (App. 1988).
(c)     White v. Snell, 299 S.C. 406, 385 S.E.2d 211 (App. 1989). He handled the case at trial level and through preparation of Appellate Briefs. He became the Master in Equity prior to the case being argued on appeal.

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:
In that his private law practice was primarily civil, he did not handle any criminal appeals. He has experience in criminal law through being a research assistant while in law school to Professor William S. McAninch when he wrote a book entitled, The Criminal Law of South Carolina. He also served as law clerk to the Honorable C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge, where a large percentage of cases were criminal.

20.     Judicial Office:
Master in Equity, 1989 - present, appointed position
Special Circuit Court Judge in upstate counties, 1990 - present, appointed pursuant to Order of the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court

21.     Five (5) of the most significant orders or opinions:
(a)     Spring Masters, Inc. v. D & M Mfg., 303 S.C. 528, 402 S.E.2d 192 (1991). Involved interpretation of South Carolina's Long Arm Statute. In the scheme of things, not a particularly noteworthy case. It was, however, significant to him since it was the first appeal of one of his cases to be decided and his decision was affirmed.
(b)     First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, ___ S.C. ___, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). This case involved interpretation of the road closure statute found at Section 57-9-10. This was a novel and hotly litigated question that took over two full days of trial. The decision to close the road was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court.
(c)     Culler v. Blue Ridge Electric Co-op, Inc., ___ S.C. ___, 422 S.E.2d 91 (1992). This case involved a wrongful discharge claim by an employee who contended he was terminated for failure to participate in a P.A.C. membership program at Blue Ridge Electric. His ruling that the termination was based upon poor job performance was upheld on appeal to the Supreme Court.
(d)     Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority v. City of Easley, et al., Op. No. 23789, (S.C. S.Ct. filed February 1, 1993). This case involved interpretation of the legislative Enabling Act that established the Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority. It was a novel issue involving numerous witnesses, which took two days to try. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of $2,000,000.00.
(e)     Spinx Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mutual Ins., Co., Op. No. 23801, (S.C. S.Ct. filed February 16, 1993). This case involved novel issues concerning interpretation of environmental hazards liability insurance coverage. The ruling on the coverage question, which involved over $350,000.00 was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

27.     He is not aware of any arrangements or relationships which could result in a conflict of interest. If any conflict should arise, he would recuse himself, with full explanation on the record, from hearing such a case.

32.     Over the years in private practice three complaints were made to the Bar Grievance Committee concerning him. Two were filed by adverse parties in hotly contested divorce litigation and made after the Family Court ruled. Following a preliminary investigation, both claims were dismissed as having no foundation. The other claim was made against three lawyers at the law firm he was formerly associated with by a former client.

33.     His health is excellent. His last full physical was in January, 1991, by Dr. Lynn Hammond, 25 Creekview Court, Greenville, South Carolina 29615.

40.     He is a part-time instructor in the Paralegal Program at Greenville Technical College since approximately 1987. Mr. Nick Fisher is the program supervisor.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Greenville County Bar Association; Greenville Bar Association's Young Lawyer Division (President, 1988)

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
First Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC (Elder, Senior High Advisor, Sunday School teacher); Master in Equity representative to S. C. Supreme Court Bench-Bar Committee; Greenville Zoo Advisory Board; Advisory Board, Big Brothers/Big Sisters (Chairman, 1987-1989); Board of Directors Pendleton Place Home for Abused Children; Kindergarten Board, First Presbyterian Church (Chairman, 1993); Leadership Greenville (Class Speaker); S. C. Equity Court Council (Vice-President, 1992-1993); Advisory Committee, Paralegal Program, Greenville Tech (Chairman, 1992); Greenville Jaycees "Outstanding Young Distinguished Service Award" (1991); S. C. Bar Association's "Outstanding Young Lawyer of the Year" (1989); Wade Hampton Sertoma Club "Outstanding Service to Mankind Award" (1989); Big Brother of the Year, Southeastern United States (1988); Who's Who in American Law

50.     He feels very qualified for a seat on the Court of Appeals. He was in private law practice for six years and tried hundreds of cases. He also has extensive judicial experience since being Master in Equity and being appointed Special Circuit Court Judge since 1989. When he started on the Bench, he committed to be the best judge he could be in all respects; from legal, to civic, to spiritual. He understands the awesome responsibility of the position he seeks and stands willing and ready to accept it.

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Robert M. Austell, Executive Vice President
Greenville National Bank
290 South Pleasantburg Drive, P. O. Box 17308
Greenville, SC 29606
(b)     Dr. Randolph Kowalski
Minister
First Presbyterian Church, 200 West Washington Street,

Greenville, SC 29601
(c)     Richard S. Fisher, J.D.
Department Head, Paralegal
Greenville Technical College
P. O. Box 5616, Greenville, SC 29606-5616
(d)     Cecil H. Nelson, Jr., Esquire
Wilkins & Nelson, P.A.

408 East North Street, Greenville, SC 29601-3098

(e)     Henri Etta S. Spurgeon, LBSW
Youth Programs Coordinator
S. C. Department of Social Services
P. O. Box 10887, Greenville, SC 29603
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. THE REPORTS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, INCLUDING GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF AND GREENVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE NEGATIVE. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENT OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU.THERE'S ONE CIVIL ACTION, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH A BREACH OF DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BACK IN 1988?
A     THAT WAS NOT ME INVOLVED IN THAT CASE.
Q     IT WAS NOT?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH AS EXCELLENT?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     AND STAFF INFORMS ME WE HAVE NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED, NOR HAVE ANY WITNESSES NOTIFIED US THAT THEY WISH TO TESTIFY. SO, WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNSEL, MR. COUICK, HAS GOT FOR YOU, SIR.
A     ALL RIGHT.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     GOOD MORNING.
A     GOOD MORNING, MR. COUICK.
Q     IF YOU NEED ANYTHING, JUST LET ME KNOW. IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, I'LL BE GLAD TO SPEAK UP. (TO MS. SATTERWHITE) MAYBE, LET'S GET HIM A GLASS OF WATER. MR. SIMMONS, YOU ARE NOT RATED IN MARTINDALE-HUBBLE?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     YOU'VE PRACTICED FOR SIX YEARS BEFORE BECOMING A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, I BELIEVE. CAN YOU TELL ME YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHY YOU ARE NOT RATED EVEN AT THAT POINT, WHEN YOU WERE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE?
A     I NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. I WAS NOT--SIMPLY WAS NOT AWARE OF EXACTLY HOW THEY USE A RATING PROCESS, OR HOW LONG YOU HAVE TO PRACTICE. WE NEVER RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION FROM THEM. SINCE BECOMING A MASTER, I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE AND RATE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL BAR, AND JUST NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MYSELF.
Q     OKAY. YOU INDICATE ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS THAT YOU ARE A PART-TIME INSTRUCTOR AT GREENVILLE TECHNICAL COLLEGE. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR POSITION AS TO THAT EMPLOYMENT, IF YOU WOULD BECOME ELECTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS?
A     AS FAR AS I KNOW, IT WOULD CONTINUE. I TEACH PART-TIME IN THE PARALEGAL PROGRAM, AND HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS NOW.
Q     WOULD YOU INTEND TO RESIDE IN GREENVILLE IF YOU WERE ELECTED?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     YOU ALSO INDICATE THAT YOU OWN SOME STOCK IN, I BELIEVE, ONE OR TWO CORPORATIONS, AND THIS IS ON YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS STATEMENT. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THE RULES OF RECUSAL AS TO YOUR OWNERSHIP OF THAT STOCK? WHEN WOULD YOU NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF?
A     I THINK ANY TIME THAT ANY CORPORATION CAME IN FRONT OF ME THAT I MAY HAVE HELD SOME STOCK IN, AT THAT TIME, THAT I SHOULD DISCLOSE IT ON THE RECORD AND GIVE THE ATTORNEYS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ME TO RECUSE MYSELF.
Q     AND THAT IS REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF SHARES YOU OWN IN THE COMPANY?
A     YES, SIR. AS YOU CAN TELL, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT, SO I DON'T EXPECT THAT'S GOING TO COME UP TOO OFTEN; BUT IF IT DID, I WOULD CERTAINLY FEEL THE BETTER RULE WOULD BE TO DISCLOSE IT.
Q     NO TELLING WHEN TYCO TOYS MIGHT BE IN FRONT OF YOU.
A     THAT WAS ONE OF THOSE HOT TIPS FROM A NEWSLETTER. AS MY INVESTMENT HISTORY HAS SHOWN, IT DID NOT TURN OUT TO BE TOO HOT. I WOULD BE QUITE AN EFFECTIVE TAX LOSS MANAGER.
Q     YOU WERE ALSO VERY INVOLVED WITH A COUPLE OF CHILDREN ISSUE ORGANIZATIONS, AND FROM TIME TO TIME YOU HAVE HAD INVOLVEMENT WITH D.S.S. AND SOME OTHER AGENCIES THAT WORK WITH THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT ROLE YOU HAVE WITH THOSE NOW IN TERMS OF SOLICITATION OF FUNDS, OR SOLICITATIONS OF OTHER MEMBERS, THAT SORT OF THING. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR POSITION, IF YOU WERE ELECTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, ON YOUR WORK WITH THOSE ORGANIZATIONS?
A     THE ORGANIZATIONS I'M INVOLVED WITH NOW ARE NOT AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY WITH THE GOVERNMENT. AND I ALWAYS TELL THE PEOPLE WHEN I'M ASKED TO JOIN A BOARD, GOING IN, THAT I CAN'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF FUND-RAISING EFFORTS WHATSOEVER, AND IF THEY WILL TAKE ME WITH THAT PROVISO THEN I'LL BE GLAD TO SERVE. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY, AND I BELIEVE THAT--WELL, I WAS BROUGHT UP THAT WAY, AND I ENJOY IT. BUT I DON'T GET INVOLVED IN ANY FUND-RAISING BECAUSE THAT'S AGAINST THE RULES, AS I'M SURE EVERYBODY IS AWARE.
Q     DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE WITH YOU?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IF NOT, WE CAN SUPPLY A COPY. ON QUESTION NUMBER 15, YOU ARE ASKED TO DESCRIBE THE PERCENTAGE OF LITIGATION THAT WAS CIVIL, CRIMINAL, AND DOMESTIC. YOU INDICATED THERE--AND I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY REFERRING BACK TO YOUR SIX YEARS OF PRIVATE PRACTICE.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     --THAT YOU HAD 60 PERCENT CIVIL, 40 PERCENT DOMESTIC, LEAVING NOT MUCH ROOM FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICE. THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES, FROM TIME TO TIME, HEAR CRIMINAL CASES OR CRIMINAL APPEALS. HAVE YOU HAD ANY CRIMINAL EXPERIENCE?
A     YES. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POINTS TO MAKE ABOUT THAT. THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES. WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL, I WORKED WITH PROFESSOR WILLIAM McANINCH WHO WROTE A BOOK, THE CRIMINAL LAW OF SOUTH CAROLINA, WHICH I WAS HIS RESEARCH ASSISTANT ON. ALSO, I CLERKED FOR VIC PYLE RIGHT OUT OF LAW SCHOOL, A LOT OF CRIMINAL WORK. ALSO, I AM APPOINTED ROUTINELY TO HEAR SPECIAL--AS A SPECIAL CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE TO HEAR VARIOUS CASES, BY THE SUPREME COURT, AND INCLUDED IN THAT I HEAR P.C.R.'S--POST-CONVENTION RELIEFS. AND IN THAT, AS I'M SURE YOU ARE ALL AWARE, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL ISSUES THAT OCCURRED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL AND DETERMINE IF THEY WERE PROPERLY APPLIED. SO I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE AND CONFIDENT IN THE ABILITY. ALSO, IF YOU LOOK AT JUDGE CURETON AND JUDGE SHAW, THEY CAME FROM A CIVIL BENCH, AND THEY QUICKLY DISTINGUISHED THEMSELVES AS FINE JURISTS ON THE COURT OF APPEALS. ALSO THE COURT OF APPEALS HEARS CASES IN PANELS, SO--YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PERFECT CANDIDATE, AND WE'RE ALL HUMAN. SOME OF US HAVE SOME STRENGTHS, WHEREAS OTHERS ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME WEAKNESSES. IN A PANEL, I WOULD HAVE SOME STRENGTHS THAT OTHERS WOULD NOT HAVE. AND I, IN ALL HONESTY, WOULD PROBABLY HAVE SOME WEAKNESSES THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO STRENGTHEN UP. BUT OVER THE COURSE OF MY FOUR YEARS, OR FOUR AND A HALF YEARS OF BEING MASTER, I'VE HAD STUFF I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, SECURITIES FRAUD CASES, ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, MALPRACTICE CASES. I HAD NO EXPERIENCE WITH THEM WHEN I STARTED, BUT I HAD THE ISSUE, HEARD IT, GOT THE BOOKS, AND CAME UP WITH WHAT I FELT WAS A RIGHT DECISION.
Q     AND I'M NOT HERE TO NECESSARILY POINT OUT ALL THE BLEMISHES ON YOUR P.D.Q., BUT I DO NEED TO RAISE SOME QUESTIONS. AND ONE OTHER ONE I NEED TO RAISE IS WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LIMITED APPELLATE PRACTICE THAT YOU HAD WHEN YOU WERE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. ON YOUR QUESTION NUMBER 18, YOUR ANSWERS THERE, YOU INDICATE TWO MATTERS THAT LOOK LIKE WENT THE FULL ROUTE OF APPEAL UNDER YOUR DIRECTION, ONE OF THEM THAT YOU HANDLED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL AND WENT TO APPEAL AFTER YOU BECAME A MASTER-IN-EQUITY. IS THIS THE SUM TOTAL OF YOUR APPELLATE EXPERIENCE?
A     YES. I JUST NEVER HAD THAT MANY APPEALS. MINE WAS PRIMARILY TRIAL. AND IT WASN'T THAT THE CLIENT WOULD GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO HAVE AN APPEAL. IT WAS SIMPLY THAT IT WAS EITHER RESOLVED TO THEIR SATISFACTION OR IT WAS RESOLVED PRIOR TO TRIAL. ALSO, AS MASTER, NOW, I VIEW WHAT I WOULD BE DOING ON THE COURT OF APPEALS AS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT I DO AS MASTER, IN THAT THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE PRESENTED TO ME--THE FACTUAL ISSUES--AND I HAVE TO CULL THEM OUT. I HAVE TO APPLY THE ANALYSIS. I DON'T GIVE THEM OVER TO A JURY. I RESEARCH IT, I COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION, AND I ISSUE AN ORDER. SO AS FAR AS THE SIMILARITY OF WORK, I THINK IT WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY THE SAME.
Q     MR. SIMMONS, YOU INDICATE ON YOUR P.D.Q., QUESTION NUMBER 43, THAT YOU'VE EXPENDED NO MONEY FOR THIS CANDIDACY, AND THAT EXCLUDES TRAVEL, ROOM, OR BOARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO UPDATE THAT FOR THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME, OR HAVE YOU CONTINUED TO NOT SPEND ANY MONIES?
A     JUST TRAVELING DOWN TO MEET SOME FOLKS. THAT'S IT.
Q     NO LETTERS, NO COPYING EXPENSE?
A     WELL, SURE. I MEAN, LETTERS. I'VE SENT OUT LETTERS AND PAID POSTAGE MYSELF.
Q     I BELIEVE THE ANSWER THAT WE REQUESTED FROM OTHER CANDIDATES--AND I THINK CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN CALLED TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR ANSWERS--IS ANY EXPENDITURES OTHER THAN TRAVEL, ROOM, OR BOARD. THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANY MAILING EXPENSE.
A     OKAY, YES, SIR. I HAVE SENT--WHEN I MEET PEOPLE, I SEND THEM A LETTER SAYING "ENJOYED MEETING YOU." THAT WAS SIMPLY A MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART.
Q     RIGHT. IF YOU COULD, SUPPLEMENT YOUR ANSWER TO THAT AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.
A     OKAY.
Q     AND INCLUDING, IF THOSE CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES WERE OVER $100, YOU WILL NEED TO FILE WITH THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE A REPORT. THAT WOULD INCLUDE POSTAGE, STATIONERY, ET CETERA. MR. SIMMONS, BRIEFLY TELL THE COMMITTEE ABOUT THE STATE OF YOUR HEALTH.
A     AS FAR AS I KNOW, EXCEPT FOR A LITTLE ALLERGY PROBLEM--GREENVILLE COUNTY GOT HIT PRETTY HARD WITH THE POLLEN THIS YEAR--GOOD HEALTH. I DON'T EXERCISE AS MUCH AS I SHOULD, BUT WITH TWO SMALL CHILDREN, I FIND CHASING THEM AROUND THE HOUSE KEEPS ME RIGHT BUSY.
Q     YOU'LL FIND THAT COUNSEL WON'T ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT EXERCISE.
A     I PLAY CHURCH SOFTBALL, SO THAT'S ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT. AS FAR AS I KNOW, REAL GOOD HEALTH. I DON'T HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEMS. I COME FROM A LONG LINE OF HEALTHY FOLKS, SO I PLAN ON BEING HERE A GOOD WHILE.
Q     YOU INDICATE YOU HAVE TWO CHILDREN UNDER, I GUESS, ABOUT FOUR YEARS OF AGE, OR FIVE NOW.
A     ONE WILL BE FIVE ON MAY 14TH.
Q     ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AWAY. WE HAVE ASKED BOTH MALE AND FEMALE CANDIDATES FOR JUDGESHIPS IF THOSE CHILDREN OF THAT AGE WILL POSE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOUR GIVING FULL ATTENTION TO YOUR JUDICIAL DUTIES. WOULD THEY, IN YOUR CASE?
A     NO, SIR. MY WIFE AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS EXTENSIVELY AND PRAYED SIGNIFICANTLY ABOUT IT. WE FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WITH IT. I AM VERY COMMITTED TO THE FAMILY. I HAVE A GREAT FAMILY, WONDERFUL WIFE. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WOULD INVOLVE BEING IN COLUMBIA SOME, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE AN OFFICE IN GREENVILLE, AND--IF I THOUGHT IT WOULD SACRIFICE MY FAMILY TO ANY EXTENT, I WOULD NOT DO IT.
Q     DESCRIBE WHAT YOU WOULD ENVISION TO BE YOUR TYPICAL WORK DAY, IF YOU WERE TO BE ELECTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
A     WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD VARY FROM, YOU KNOW--OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU'RE HEARING CASES, YOU HAVE ONE SET. AS IT STANDS IN GREENVILLE NOW, I'M NORMALLY AT THE OFFICE BY 8:00 OR 8:15, AND PROBABLY HOME ABOUT 5:30 OR SO, AND I ROUTINELY HEAR CASES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON. I WOULD ASSUME THAT DURING THE WEEKS WHEN WE HEAR CASES, THAT IS MOST OF YOUR EMPHASIS AND ENERGY SPENT. THEN, THE REST OF THE TIME, YOU WOULD BE RESEARCHING AND WRITING AND COORDINATING WITH THE OTHER JUDGES AND LAW CLERKS AND WHATNOT.
Q     YOU LIST SEVERAL PUBLICATIONS IN YOUR P.D.Q. ON QUESTION NUMBER TEN. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW--YOU STATE YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT TIPS FOR NON-JURY PRACTICE, AND YOU'RE A CONTRIBUTING WRITER TO SOUTH CAROLINA JURISPRUDENCE. IN WHAT AREA DO YOU WRITE FOR JURISPRUDENCE?
A     ON MORTGAGES.
Q     MORTGAGES?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     AND ALSO YOU'RE DOING AN ARTICLE FOR U.S.C. LAW SCHOOL ALUMNI MAGAZINE TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE SPRING, AND THAT ARTICLE IS ON--
A     NO GREAT SUBSTANCE MATTER. I WAS ASKED TO CHAIR A TEN-YEAR CLASS REUNION AND IT WENT OVER SO WELL THAT FOLKS AT THE LAW SCHOOL ASKED THAT I WRITE A COLUMN.
Q     "HOW TO RAISE MONEY"?
A     WELL, NO, SIR. NO, SIR. JUST TO KIND OF GET THE SPIRIT. THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR THEY'VE HAD A TEN-YEAR REUNION AT THE LAW SCHOOL, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A TRADITION GOING, AND SO THEY ASKED THAT I PUT AN ARTICLE IN.
Q     WOULD YOU FIND THE CANONS OF ETHICS WOULD IN ANY WAY RESTRICT YOUR RAISING MONEY AT THE LAW SCHOOL, CERTAINLY AS THE CLASS CHAIR OR ANYTHING?
A     NO, I CHAIRED THE CLASS REUNION COMMITTEE.
Q     I'M SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.
A     NO, I CAN'T BE INVOLVED IN FUND-RAISING, PERIOD, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, SO IT WOULD BE IMPACT ME ZERO.
Q     OKAY. ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, FROM TIME TO TIME, YOU MAY FIND AN ISSUE THAT YOU EITHER MODERATELY OR STRONGLY OPPOSE THE OTHER TWO JUDGES THAT SIT WITH YOU. WHAT WILL IT TAKE IN TERMS OF STRONGNESS OF FEELING, FOR YOU TO ENTER A DISSENT?
A     IF I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Q     WHAT DO YOU THINK--WHAT EFFECT DO YOU THINK DISSENTS HAVE ON THE BODY OF THE LAW AS BEING AVAILABLE TO PRACTITIONERS, AND ALSO AS IT RELATES TO CAMARADERIE AMONG THE COURT?
A     WELL, I THINK IF YOU DON'T HAVE DISAGREEMENTS OCCASIONALLY I THINK YOU'VE GOT PROBLEMS, BECAUSE YOU'RE SHOWING THAT PEOPLE ARE INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATING AND INVESTIGATING THE CASES, SO I THINK IT'S GOOD. IF YOU START HAVING TOO MANY, THOUGH, THEN YOU'VE GOT SOME PROBLEMS, BECAUSE--I VIEW THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SUPREME COURT AS A SITUATION THAT IS, NUMBER ONE, TO EDUCATE THE BENCH AND THE BAR; AND NUMBER TWO, TO RESOLVE DISPUTES FOR PARTIES. SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONSISTENCY TO THAT EXTENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF I WERE CONVINCED THAT MY TWO BRETHREN WERE MISGUIDED, THEN I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM DISSENTING AND SETTING OUT THE BASES THAT I FELT APPROPRIATE.
Q     BUT YOU WOULD SEE SOME PROBLEM IF YOU, OR ANY OTHER MEMBER, EITHER CONSISTENTLY ISSUED CONCURRING OPINIONS OR DISSENTS, IN THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A CLEAR STATEMENT OF WHAT THE LAW IS?
A     OH, YES, SURE. LOOK AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. EVERY DECISION THEY COME OUT WITH SEEMS TO HAVE FOUR OR FIVE SUB-PARTS, AND AS A RESULT PEOPLE DOWN HERE IN THE STREETS--SO TO SPEAK--AREN'T REAL SURE WHAT THE LAW IS. THEY KNOW WHAT THE BIG PICTURE IS, BUT THE LAW IS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF THE LITTLE PICTURES BEING PUT INTO THE BIG PICTURE, AND YOU HAVE A REAL FRAGMENTED SYSTEM. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
Q     ONE OTHER TOPIC WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH OTHER CANDIDATES FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS POSITIONS IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT, BY ADMINISTRATIVE RULE, HAS ASKED THE COURT TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AND HAVE A HEAVIER CASE LOAD--IN FACT, A LITTLE OVER DOUBLING THEIR CASE LOAD OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS. IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ASKED THAT CASES BE ASSIGNED TO AN INDIVIDUAL JUDGE FROM THE TIME THEY ARRIVE AT THE COURT OF APPEALS, AS OPPOSED TO PAST PRACTICE WHEN CASES WERE ASSIGNED AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT, ONCE THEY DETERMINED WHO WAS THE (INDICATING) "CORRECT" JUDGE TO WRITE THE OPINION. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR FEELINGS ON THAT?
A     AS FAR AS THE INCREASED WORKLOAD?
Q     WELL, NOT REALLY SO MUCH THAT, AS THE CHANGE IN THE PROCEDURE OF THE COURT ASSIGNING CASES.
A     WELL, SINCE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE OLD PROCEDURE, I WOULD THINK THE NEW PROCEDURE WOULD BE THE PROCEDURE I WOULD FIT IN WITH. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST, SOMETIMES YOU CAN BENEFIT FROM THE FUTURE.
Q     WOULD YOU SEE THAT THE QUALITY OF THE DECISION GIVEN WOULD SOMEHOW BE AFFECTED IF ONLY ONE JUDGE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING HIMSELF FOR ORAL ARGUMENT?
A     I WOULD THINK THAT ALL SHOULD HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE BEFORE THEY WALK INTO THE COURTROOM.
Q     IF THE REASON THEY'RE CHANGING THE RULE OR PROCEDURE, THOUGH, IS TO ALLOW FOR A HEAVIER WORKLOAD, WOULDN'T IT REALLY ARGUE THAT THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IS TO TAKE THAT BURDEN OFF THE OTHER TWO JUDGES?
A     I COULD SEE THAT ARGUMENT, BUT, STILL, I THINK IF I'M GOING TO DECIDE ON AN OPINION, THEN I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THAT CASE.
Q     SO INDEPENDENT OF ANY RULE CHANGE, YOU WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR READING AND JUDGING ALL MATERIALS NECESSARY TO GET READY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT?
A     YES, I WOULD--I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE ANY APPELLATE JUDGE'S RESPONSIBILITY.
Q     LONG-TERM PLANS FOR YOUR LEGAL PRACTICE, WHETHER AS A JUDGE OR A PRIVATE PRACTITIONER, HAVE YOU FORMULATED ANY? HOW LONG OF A COMMITMENT DO YOU WISH TO MAKE IF YOU ARE ELECTED?
A     RIGHT NOW, MR. COUICK, ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I VIEW THE COURT OF APPEALS AS SOMETHING I'M QUALIFIED FOR, WOULD ENJOY DOING, WOULD GO INTO--OR WILL GO INTO IT--WITH A COMMITMENT LONG-TERM, AND BEYOND THAT IS UP TO THE GOOD LORD. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT TO SOUND TRITE OR LIKE I'M NOT ADDRESSING IT, BUT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS BEYOND THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Q     A COUPLE OF ETHICS QUESTIONS OR CANONS OF ETHICS QUESTIONS. TELL ME YOUR FEELINGS ON EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, BOTH AT THE TRIAL LEVEL AND THE APPELLATE LEVEL. HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE ATTORNEYS THAT ATTEMPTED TO HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION?
A     THE SAME WAY I HANDLE THEM NOW: TELL THEM THAT I CAN'T DISCUSS A CASE THAT I HAVE, AND I'LL BE GLAD TO DO A CONFERENCE CALL.
Q     IF AN ATTORNEY PREPARES AN ORDER FOR YOU, NOW, IN YOUR ROLE AS MASTER-IN-EQUITY, WHAT PROCESS DO YOU ASK THE ATTORNEY TO GO THROUGH BEFORE HE PRESENTS THAT ORDER TO YOU?
A     WHAT I NORMALLY DO, IN MORE THAN PROBABLY 75 PERCENT OF THE CASES--ASSUMING I DON'T RULE FROM THE BENCH; AND, YOU KNOW, OCCASIONALLY I WILL DO THAT, BUT MOST TIMES IT'S SO COMPLICATED THAT I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT, AND ALSO SOMETIMES IT HELPS TO GET THE PARTIES OUT OF THE ROOM SO THEY DON'T IMMEDIATELY START YELLING AT YOU--BUT WHAT I WILL DO IS GENERALLY DICTATE A LETTER GIVING THE BASIS FOR MY OPINION AND SEND IT OUT TO BOTH SIDES AND SAY, YOU KNOW, "ATTORNEY 'A,' PLEASE DRAFT A PROPOSED ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS LETTER. WHEN YOU SEND IT BACK TO ME, SEND A COURTESY COPY TO THE OPPOSING COUNSEL. OPPOSING COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS OR OBJECTIONS, CALL ME IMMEDIATELY TO SET UP A CONFERENCE CALL." AND ON THE TIMES WHEN I DON'T DO THAT, I WILL HAVE A MEMBER OF MY STAFF CALL BOTH ATTORNEYS AND SAY, "THIS IS WHAT SIMMONS WANTS TO DO, AND SO-AND-SO, WILL YOU PLEASE DRAW THE ORDER?"
Q     RIGHT.
A     SO I'M VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT, AND LEARNED FROM ONE OF THE BEST IN THE STATE, THROUGH JUDGE PYLE, AS FAR AS HOW TO HANDLE THAT.
Q     IN THE AREA OF RECEIVING GIFTS FROM ATTORNEYS--AND JUST TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT MY DEFINITION OF "A GIFT" IS, IT WOULD INCLUDE EVEN A BUSINESS LUNCH OR A LUNCH THAT THEY PURCHASE FOR YOU--HOW DO YOU APPROACH THAT, WHETHER IT BE AN ATTORNEY THAT ACTIVELY PRACTICES BEFORE YOU AND HAS CASES EITHER PENDING CURRENTLY OR LIKELY TO HAVE A CASE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, OR JUST THE GENERAL PRACTITIONER.
A     I GUESS TWO EXAMPLES: NUMBER ONE, I DON'T LET AN ATTORNEY BUY MY LUNCH OR BUY ME MEALS OR TAKE ME OUT, OR WHATNOT. SECONDLY, I GUESS THE THING THAT COMES TO MIND THE MOST IS THAT SHORTLY AFTER I STARTED--OR, I GUESS, THE FIRST CHRISTMAS AFTER I STARTED, A GROUP OF LAWYERS SENT OVER ABOUT THREE OR FOUR BOXES OF CHOCOLATES, AND I HAD ONE OF MY STAFF CALL THEM AND TELL THEM THAT I WAS VERY SORRY AND HOPED THEY UNDERSTOOD, BUT WE JUST COULDN'T ACCEPT IT. AND I THINK IT TOOK ABOUT A YEAR FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS--
Q     YOU REALIZE THE RULE SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SEND THOSE TO THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE ONCE THEY'RE RECEIVED?
A     I DIDN'T KNOW ANYBODY GOING TO COLUMBIA AT THAT POINT.
Q     WE HAVE TO INSPECT THEM.
A     IT WAS HARD, I TELL YOU, BECAUSE IT WAS SOME MIGHTY GOOD CANDY--AT LEAST IT APPEARED TO BE, THROUGH THE WRAPPER.
Q     MR. SIMMONS, HAVE YOU REQUESTED ANY ATTORNEY WHO APPEARS BEFORE YOU, OR WHO IS LIKELY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU, TO WRITE LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU IN THIS PROCESS?
A     THE ONLY ATTORNEY THAT I AM AWARE OF THAT I HAVE REQUESTED TO WRITE A LETTER FOR ME WAS MY FORMER LAW PARTNER, CECIL NELSON, AS PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD TO SEND IN--
Q     RIGHT.
A     --SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAD PRACTICED WITH CECIL AND FELT HE KNEW ME, AND HE'S ALSO OBJECTIVE AND A FINE LAWYER. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I--I THINK IT PUTS ME IN A DIFFICULT POSITION, AND IT PUTS A LAWYER IN A DIFFICULT POSITION. SOME HAVE, ON THEIR OWN--FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND--WRITTEN LETTERS ON MY BEHALF, BUT I HAVE NOT REQUESTED IT, NOR WOULD I.
Q     DO YOU TYPICALLY RECUSE YOURSELF FROM HEARING CASES OF MR. NELSON?
A     WHAT I DO, I HAD A RULE GOING IN THAT, FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, I WOULDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM MY OLD LAW FIRM; BEYOND THAT POINT, I WOULD PUT ON THE RECORD THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE ATTORNEYS, "AS YOU'RE AWARE, I FORMERLY PRACTICED LAW. IF YOU WANT ME TO RECUSE MYSELF, I'LL BE GLAD TO," AND I'M PROUD TO SAY I HAVE NOT HAD ANYONE TAKE ME UP ON THAT.
Q     HAVE YOU ASKED ANYBODY TO ASSIST YOU IN GETTING PLEDGES FOR THIS POSITION?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     MR. SIMMONS, THERE ARE TWO PLEDGES THAT THIS COMMITTEE ASKS FROM YOU, AND LET ME READ THEM AND SEE IF YOU CAN AGREE THAT YOU CAN PLEDGE TO THEM. AS A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE, YOU WILL NOT SEEK THE PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR, NOR HAVE YOU SOUGHT THE PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR, PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THIS SCREENING PROCESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLEDGE SOUGHT IS CONDITIONAL UPON YOUR FURTHER PROCESS THROUGH THIS PROCEDURE.
A     I UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS THE RULE GOING IN. I HAVE TALKED WITH AND MET A LOT OF LEGISLATORS DOWN HERE. THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE DOWN HERE THAN I REALIZED WHEN I STARTED COMING DOWN HERE. I HAVE NEVER ASKED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR ANYBODY'S SUPPORT, COMMITMENT, PLEDGE, WHATNOT. I TELL THEM WHAT I'M DOING, WHY I'M DOWN HERE, AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WE MAY DISCUSS IT MORE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO PUT EITHER SIDE IN THAT POSITION.
Q     AND ALSO ONE OTHER STATEMENT OR PLEDGE FROM YOU. HAVE YOU AUTHORIZED ANY OTHER PERSON TO SOLICIT OR SEEK A PLEDGE UNDER THOSE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS?
A     I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?
Q     HAVE YOU AUTHORIZED ANYONE ELSE TO SEEK A PLEDGE--
A     OH, NO, SIR.
Q     --WHETHER IT BE CONDITIONAL OR NOT?
A     NO, SIR. NOW, ONCE I GET THROUGH THIS, I ASSUME I'LL BE IN HIGH GEAR--
Q     YES, SIR.
A     --BUT UNTIL THAT TIME, UNTIL YOU GIVE ME THE GREEN LIGHT, I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.
Q     IF YOU COULD, PLEASE PROVIDE TO THE COMMITTEE THE LIST OF REFERENCES YOU GAVE TO THE BAR. AND I UNDERSTOOD THEY ASKED FOR ALL OF THE ONES OFF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE PLUS MAYBE FIVE OTHERS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     YES, SIR. I DON'T--I'M TRYING TO THINK.
Q     YOU DON'T NEED TO DO IT NOW. YOU CAN JUST DO IT AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
A     OH, OKAY.
Q     JUST MAKE A LIST AND PROVIDE THOSE TO MS. SATTERWHITE.
A     OH, OKAY.
Q     ONE AREA THAT THE COMMITTEE IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN IS JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. IF YOU WERE TO DO A SURVEY OF ATTORNEYS THAT PRACTICED BEFORE YOU AS MASTER-IN-EQUITY, WOULD THERE BE ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT YOU BEING HIGH-HANDED OR LIKELY TO HAVE TANTRUMS OR BELITTLE AN ATTORNEY OR ANYTHING?
A     I CAN TRUTHFULLY SAY I DON'T THINK SO. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THAT DISAGREE WITH ME, WHICH IS PART OF THE JOB, BUT I REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO PRACTICE LAW AND I REMEMBER BEING IN A COURTROOM WITH MY CLIENTS AND HAVING A JUDGE JUMP ALL OVER ME FOR NOTHING, AND IT WAS VERY EMBARRASSING, VERY DEMEANING, AND I PLEDGED WHEN I STARTED THAT I WOULD NEVER FORGET WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND, YOU KNOW, I MAKE A DECISION; I TRY TO BE CORDIAL TO BOTH SIDES. AND, NO, SIR, I'M JUST NOT THAT WAY.
Q     I TAKE IT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A PERSONAL RULE YOU WOULD KEEP, IF YOU WENT ON THE COURT OF APPEALS?
A     OH, YES, SIR. I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT TO RESPECT THE PERSON, BECAUSE THE PERSON IS THE POSITION. IF YOU CAN'T RESPECT THE PERSON, THEN THE POSITION ITSELF IS VERY LITTLE, AND, IN FACT, IT BECOMES A NEGATIVE.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE THAT'S IT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     WHAT IS YOUR CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT?
A     THAT YOU BE FAIR, THAT YOU LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES, AND YOU MAKE THE DECISION THAT YOU BELIEVE IS RIGHT.
Q     HAVE YOU EVER HEARD A TERM CALLED "ROBITIS"?
A     YES, SIR. I'VE SEEN THAT IN ACTION BEFORE, SIR.
Q     ROBES GET HEAVY ON THE HEAD AND SCRAMBLE THE BRAINS A BIT?
A     YES, SIR. ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT I HAVE A LOT TO BE HUMBLE ABOUT, AND ROBITIS--I WOULD WELCOME ANYBODY TO CHECK WITH ANY LAWYER IN THE UPSTATE. I'VE JUST NEVER DONE THAT.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: MR. SIMMONS AND I WERE CLASSMATES AND GOOD FRIENDS IN LAW SCHOOL, AND I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS CHANCE, FOR A LONG TIME, TO ASK HIM A QUESTION.
WITNESS: CAN I ASK TO BE EXCUSED, PLEASE, SIR?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     I DO HAVE ONE SERIOUS QUESTION FOR MR. SIMMONS, AND THAT IS: TO MY MEMORY, YOU'RE ONE OF THE FIRST CANDIDATES FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS--SINCE I'VE BEEN ON SCREENING, AT LEAST--THAT HAD AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND AS A MASTER-IN-EQUITY. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHETHER YOU THINK THAT IS AN ADVANTAGE FOR THE COURT TO HAVE SOMEONE WITH THAT BACKGROUND, AND, IF SO, WHAT PECULIAR INSIGHTS FROM BEING A MASTER DO YOU THINK WOULD ASSIST YOU IN BEING AN APPELLATE COURT JUDGE?
A     I THINK IT'S A VERY STRONG ADVANTAGE. AGAIN, I LOOK BACK AT JUDGE CURETON WHO'S ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHO WAS FORMERLY A MASTER, AND JUDGE SHAW, WHO WAS FORMERLY A MASTER. YOU ARE SIMPLY PREPARED AND ENFORCED TO TAKE THE CASE AND ANALYZE IT FROM START TO FINISH. YOU DON'T TELL A GROUP OF 12 PEOPLE AT THE END OF THE CASE, "ALL RIGHT, THESE ARE THE RULES; YOU COME UP WITH THE DECISION." YOU BITE THE BULLET. YOU LEARN WHAT TO LOOK FOR. YOU LEARN HOW TO ANALYZE THE CASE, AND YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION. AND I'M REAL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, BOTH FROM BEING MASTER AND ALSO, ABOUT ONE WEEK A MONTH OR ONE WEEK EVERY SIX WEEKS, I HEAR NON-JURY CASES, CIRCUIT COURT CASES; AND, AGAIN, THE PROCESS IS THE SAME. SO, AS I RESPONDED TO MR. COUICK A FEW MINUTES AGO, ON THE APPELLATE LEVEL I SEE VERY, VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE. AND I HEAR A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, YOU KNOW, WORKERS' COMP CASES, OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT CASES; AND YOU TAKE THE RECORD AND YOU ANALYZE IT, AND YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION ON IT. SO I THINK--I'VE GOT ALMOST FIVE YEARS' EXPERIENCE DOING THAT, AND SO I THINK I'D BE PRETTY GOOD.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANYTHING FURTHER? SENATOR?

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     DO YOU RECALL THE DATE THAT THE BAR INTERVIEWED YOU?
A     IT WAS A WEDNESDAY MORNING, AND I THINK TOMORROW WILL BE TWO WEEKS.
Q     HOW MANY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BAR WERE PRESENT WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED?
A     THREE.
Q     DO YOU KNOW IN WHAT PART OF THE STATE THEY RESIDED?
A     DOUG PATRICK, WHO WAS FROM GREENVILLE; I.S. LEEVY JOHNSON, WHO IS FROM COLUMBIA; AND I THINK THE THIRD MEMBER'S NAME WAS BEVERLY CARROLL, WHO I BELIEVE MAY HAVE BEEN FROM ROCK HILL.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: IT'S ROCK HILL.
WITNESS: OKAY.
Q     AND YOU RECEIVED WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF YOUR EVALUATION?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     DO YOU RECALL WHAT DATE YOU RECEIVED THAT?
A     I WAS ON VACATION LAST WEEK, SENATOR, SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN IT CAME IN.
Q     WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN REGARDS TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE RATINGS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE? WAS THAT DISCUSSED? WERE YOU TOLD THAT THE EVALUATION--
A     I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WOULD BE--I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A PRESS CONFERENCE OR A PRESS RELEASE, THAT THE BAR WOULD MAKE CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATION RATINGS.
Q     BUT NOT WHEN IT WOULD BE DONE?
A     I UNDERSTOOD--MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS READING BETWEEN THE LINES, OR IF I WAS TOLD THIS--THAT IT WOULD BE SOMETIME AROUND THE TIME OF, I GUESS, LAST THURSDAY'S SCREENING, WHEN WE WERE ALL SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN SCREENED.
SENATOR MOORE: ALL RIGHT.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     PRIOR TO THURSDAY, DID YOU LEARN OF THE RATING OF ANY OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES?
A     NO, SIR. AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I TRIED, BUT I WAS TOLD--I WAS TOLD STRAIGHT UP THAT "WE AIN'T GOING TO RELEASE THAT." AND I'M SORRY, FOR ALL CONCERNED, THAT THE ISSUE THAT'S NOW BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND THE BAR COMMITTEE HAS ARISEN, BUT I DID NOT KNOW.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOUR ALL'S TIME.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: IF YOU WISH TO GO, YOU'RE FREE TO GO. WE PROBABLY WON'T NEED YOU AGAIN, UNLESS WE CALL FOR YOU.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 11:02 A.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: (TO MR. COUICK) YOU MAY WANT TO GO ON AND MAKE THE STATEMENT, SO HE KNOWS AND THE OTHER CANDIDATES HERE TODAY KNOW WHAT OUR POLICY IS ABOUT LEAVING THE RECORD OPEN.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE THE SAME REQUEST OF THIS COMMITTEE AS I'VE MADE BEFORE AT EACH OF THE OTHER SESSIONS; THAT RATHER THAN FORMALLY CLOSING THIS RECORD ONCE WE ARE COMPLETED, AT THE END OF THIS SERIES OF SCREENING, THAT THE RECORD BE CLOSED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL MEMBERS WOULD RESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, SINCE THE COMMITTEE COULD COME BACK INTO OPEN SESSION ONCE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE PUBLIC HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS RECORD, IF THEY FOUND ANY POINT THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE TO TASK AS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL OR SOMEHOW BEING LIMITED IN ITS TRUTHFULNESS, THIS COMMITTEE COULD COME BACK AND TAKE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY ON THOSE MATTERS.
JUDGE SIMMONS: THAT WILL BE FINE. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU.
WE'LL CALL AS THE NEXT APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS E. HUFF.
GOOD MORNING, SIR.
MR. HUFF: GOOD MORNING.

(WITNESS SWORN; 11:04 A.M.)

WHEREUPON, THOMAS E. HUFF, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     THIS IS YOUR FIRST SCREENING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     ONE TIME, I THINK, BACK IN 1988 OR '87, FOR THE FAMILY COURT--MAYBE EARLIER THAN THAT.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A     I HAVE.
Q     IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A     IT IS CORRECT.
Q     ALL RIGHT, SIR. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD OF YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY?
A     NO.
Q     IT SHALL BE DONE SO AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Thomas E. Huff
Home Address:                                     Business Address:
1751 Gregory Lk                             238 Edgefield Road
N. Augusta, 29841                             North Augusta, SC 29841

2.     He was born in Augusta, Georgia on June 5, 1949. He is presently 43 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married on May 5, 1974, to Patricia Dale Tucker. He has one child: Tiffany Dale, age 16.

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended USC-Aiken, 1967-1969, Associated Degree Science; Augusta College, 1969-1971, Bachelor of Business Administration; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1972-1975, Juris Doctorate.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He attended on a regular basis CLE courses of the S. C. Bar and the S. C. Trial Lawyers Association; attended the Annual Meetings of the S. C. Trial Lawyers, made several presentations relating to legislative updates of Family Law section; legislative appointee to S. C. Symposium, "Families in Court," August, 1991. He also was speaker for Professional Education Systems, Inc. on the issue of S. C. automobile insurance law.

9.     Courses taught or lectures given:
He provided Legislative Updates for the Family Law Section of the S. C. Trial Lawyers Association's Annual Meetings (1989, 1990, 1992); speaker at Professional Education Systems, Inc. seminar on S. C. automobile insurance law (1989).
12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He has been a sole practitioner since opening his law office in North Augusta, South Carolina in 1977. He has maintained a general plaintiffs' practice with primary emphasis in family law, personal injury, workers compensation, and a limited criminal practice.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -     1%
State -             99%
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 30%
Criminal - 10%
Domestic - 60%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 15%
Non-jury - 85%
Jury - sole counsel, 98%; association counsel, 2%
Non-jury - sole counsel, 100%

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)     Barnes v. Barnes, 280 S.E.2d 538, 276 S.C. 519 (1981): This is a Family Court appeal from Edgefield County in which Attorney Charles Coleman associated him. This case stands for the proposition that a separation must be actual and from bed and board.
(b)     Marie Perry v. Greenlawn Memorial and Bettye P. Clark: This case dealt with the infrequently litigated issue of entitlement of the body of a deceased spouse and/or relative. It also addressed certain issues concerning the dead man's statute.
(c)     Trenton Aviation, Inc. v. Connelley: This case held a county-run airport liable for damages sustained to a private aircraft for improper tie-down and repairs, not withstanding the fact that no tie-down fees, which could have created a contractual relationship, existed. Several municipal airports, particularly the Aiken Airport and Daniel Field Airport, were extremely interested in potential liability that could result from an adverse decision.
(d)     Longtin v. Lee (Aiken Court of Common Pleas, 1990): The case is significant in that it deals with the property implications of acquiescence.
(e)     Sharon Moore, In Re: Patrick Moore v. Janice Hammon: this was an auto accident involving a minor pedestrian who lacked memory of the incident due to head trauma, and an adult who did not see the minor, failed to stop and left the scene. The significance in that the defendant could not offer direct testimony to show contributory negligence, notwithstanding the plaintiff's loss of memory as to what happened.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:

(a)     Nguyen v. Uniflex: Aiken County Court of Common Pleas, Second Judicial Circuit; Judge Billy Keesley; decision pending.
(b)     Seigler v. Seigler: Aiken County Court of Common Pleas, Second Judicial Circuit; Master-in-Equity Robert Smoak; decision pending.
(c)     Espinosa v. Espinosa: Aiken County Family Court, Second Judicial Circuit; Judge Peter R. Nuessle; decision dismissed at request of Appellant in 1992.

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:
None

22.     Public Office: Elected to South Carolina House of Representatives in November, 1978, and serving continuously since that time

27.     He is not aware of any financial arrangement or business relationship which in any way would constitute or create a possible conflict of interest in the position he seeks.

30.     Tax Lien: A tax lien was entered in error in 1979; such error was corrected immediately.

32.     He has never been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct. There is a pending grievance for which he has given a release to the Committee so that they might examine such grievance.

33.     His health is excellent. His last full physical was in November, 1992, by Dr. John B. Baxley, III, 1502 Anthony Road, Augusta, Georgia 30904.

36.     He is currently taking Calan-SR for mild hypertension as prescribed by Dr. Scott Key, 818 St. Sebastian Way, Augusta, Georgia, but he has been released from his care.

48.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Aiken County Bar Association

49.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
North Augusta Cotillion; North Augusta Chamber of Commerce; former member of Rotary (5 years); and former member of Sertoma (over 5 years)

50.     Outstanding Officer Award, Augusta College Jaycees, 1971; Personalities of the South, 1978-1979; Outstanding Young Men of America, 1981; Service Award, S. C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1986; Consumer Advocacy Award, S. C. Psychological Association, 1989; Who's Who in American Politics, 1992-1993

51.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)     Vernon Smith, Vice President
NationsBank
North Augusta, SC 29841
(b)     Robert Alexander
USC-Aiken
171 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801
(c)     J. Michael Havird, D.M.D.
1810 Knox Avenue, North Augusta, SC 29841
(d)     Ronnie Maxwell, Esquire
225 Barnwell Avenue, NW, Aiken, SC 29801
(e)     John W. Harte, Esquire
P. O. Box 586, Aiken, SC 29802-0586

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE--LET'S SEE, WITH JUDICIAL STANDARDS IS NOT APPLICABLE AND ON THE GRIEVANCE--
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK WE CAN NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A MATTER THAT HAS BEEN PENDING, AND PERHAPS LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR THE MOMENT, JUST OUT OF THE INTERESTS OF SAVING SOME TIME.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ALL RIGHT.
Q     THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARE NEGATIVE. REPORTS OF APPLICABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE, AND THAT INCLUDES AIKEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND NORTH AUGUSTA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF AIKEN COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE, AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU. THERE'S ONE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION FILED AGAINST YOU AND 176 OTHER INDIVIDUALS, AND THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED IN 1982?
A     I THINK WE WERE ALL A PART OF THAT, IN THE LEGISLATURE.
Q     WELL, I'M GLAD TO KNOW. I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS A DEFENDANT. YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH AS EXCELLENT?
A     YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
Q     AND OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT ONE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND ONE WITNESS IS, I AM INFORMED BY COUNSEL, PRESENT TO TESTIFY.
A     THAT IS CORRECT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN YOU OVER TO OUR COUNSEL, MR. COUICK.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. HUFF, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME TODAY, LET ME KNOW. IF YOU NEED ANYTHING, WE'LL BE GLAD TO SUPPLY IT. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE WITH YOU?
A     I DO.
Q     WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT REFER TO THAT.
A     OKAY.
Q     MR. HUFF, JUST TO KIND OF SET THE FRAMEWORK I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH IN YOUR QUESTIONING, I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THE GRIEVANCE MATTER AND ALL MATTERS ATTENDANT TO IT UNTIL LAST. I THINK, TO SOME DEGREE, IT WILL TEND TO MAKE THE OTHER QUESTIONS HARDER TO ORGANIZE IF WE GET INVOLVED IN THAT FIRST AND THEN TRY TO MOVE ON TO OTHER ONES. IN REVIEWING YOUR CREDIT RATING, WHICH WAS REPORTED BY ONE OF THE CREDIT AGENCIES, THERE WAS--IT WAS ALMOST UNIFORMLY FAVORABLE, BUT THERE WAS ONE ENTRY FROM ONE CREDIT AGENCY THAT WAS NOT UNSATISFACTORY, BUT WAS A NEUTRAL, AND THAT WAS--I BELIEVE IT MUST BE A CREDIT CARD FROM CHEVY CHASE? IS THAT RIGHT?
A     I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT ONE.
Q     ON THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS FORM THAT YOU PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE ORIGINALLY, UNDER "INCOME AND BENEFITS" YOU LISTED ONLY YOUR SALARY. I HAVE RECEIVED THIS MORNING--
A     AMENDED.
Q     --A REVISED STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS FROM YOU THAT LISTS "SALARY/OTHER" AT $15,708. THE COMMITTEE HAS ASKED ALL CANDIDATES APPEARING BEFORE IT TO ITEMIZE THAT. IF I COULD ASK YOU FOR FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD BREAK OUT THE SALARY FROM YOUR PER DIEM AND MILEAGE, AS WELL?
A     THAT IS A COMBINATION OF ALL THREE OF THOSE.
Q     THE QUESTION ITSELF, I KNOW, IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO INTERPRET. IT SAYS "INCOME, FEES, PAYMENTS, OR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS, IDENTIFIED BY SOURCE AND TYPE." SO IF YOU WOULD BREAK THAT OUT, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
A     (NODS HEAD.)
Q     ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, QUESTION NUMBER 30, YOU INDICATE THAT THERE WAS A TAX LIEN ENTERED IN ERROR IN 1979, AND SUCH ERROR WAS CORRECTED IMMEDIATELY. JUST SO THE COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE A COMPLETE RECORD IN ADDITION TO THIS PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ERROR AND WHOSE ERROR WAS IT?
A     WELL, QUITE FRANKLY, WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS THAT WHEN WE FILED THE TAX RETURN FOR THAT YEAR, THE CHECK TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION HAD NOT BEEN ATTACHED TO IT. AND IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO CORRECT THAT, AFTER THEY NOTIFIED US, THEY PUT THE LIEN ON AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND THE CHECK THAT THEY HAD IN THEIR OFFICES, WHICH WAS MAILED TO THEM THE NEXT DAY AFTER WE HAD DISCOVERED IT, BUT THEY HAD NEVER CONNECTED THE CHECK WITH THE TAX FILING. AND THEY IMMEDIATELY TOOK IT OFF AFTER THEY DISCOVERED THAT.
Q     ASIDE FROM THAT TAX LIEN WHICH WAS ENTERED IN ERROR AT THAT DATE, HAVE YOU HAD ANY OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE?
A     NO. I TRY NOT TO.
Q     MR. HUFF, ON QUESTION 18, WHICH IS ASKING YOU TO TALK ABOUT YOUR APPELLATE EXPERIENCE, YOU LIST THREE MATTERS, APPELLATE MATTERS, AND YOU LIST TWO OF THEM AS BEING "DECISION PENDING" AND ONE AS BEING DISMISSED ON THE APPEAL IN 1992--
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     --WHICH WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT YOU'VE BEEN ACTIVE VERY RECENTLY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, BUT IT LEAVES AT LEAST OPEN THE QUESTION OF, OVER THE TERM OF YOUR PRACTICE, HOW MUCH APPELLATE EXPERIENCE HAVE YOU HAD. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT QUESTION TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR APPELLATE EXPERIENCE?
A     IN REVIEWING WITH WESTLAW, LOOKING AT THE APPELLATE EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HAD, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A CASE OF AIKEN VERSUS AIKEN ELECTRIC CO-OP. I'M GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THEM. THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE, BARRY VS. ANARIO KITCHENS. I WAS INVOLVED IN SOME BINGO LITIGATION, ARMY/NAVY BINGO GARRISON VERSUS PLOWDEN. A DOMESTIC CASE IN 1981, INVOLVING BARNES V. BARNES, WHICH WAS THE PRECEDENT ESTABLISHING WHAT IS SEPARATION FOR A YEAR. AND IN ADDITION THERETO, I HAVE THE OTHER CASES THAT ARE PENDING RIGHT NOW, AND HAD ONE RECENTLY DISMISSED. SO THERE LOOKS TO BE ABOUT SIX, POSSIBLY SEVEN, OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
Q     IF YOU COULD, PROVIDE THOSE CITES TO MY LAW CLERK, MS. GOODMAN, JUST AT YOUR CONVENIENCE?
A     I'LL BE GLAD TO.
Q     MOVING BACK--AT LEAST IN THE PROCESS--FROM APPELLATE WORK TO TRIAL LITIGATION, COULD YOU PLEASE CHARACTERIZE FOR THE COMMITTEE HOW MUCH JURY AND TRIAL EXPERIENCE--THAT IS, BENCH TRIAL EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE HAD--AND OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU GARNER THAT EXPERIENCE? HAS IT BEEN RECENTLY, AS COMPARED TO A WHILE BACK? JUST GIVE THE COMMITTEE AN ADEQUATE--
A     MOST OF MY TRIAL EXPERIENCE HAS PROBABLY BEEN OVER THE LAST THREE TO FIVE YEARS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S JUST THE RESULT OF HAVING PRACTICED AS LONG AS I HAVE, AND GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE CANTANKEROUS, BUT THAT IS WHEN THAT PRACTICE HAS OCCURRED. RECENTLY, ONE OF THE APPEALS THAT I HAVE LISTED IS A RESULT OF A JURY TRIAL WHICH OCCURRED FOR ABOUT TWO AND A HALF DAYS, WHICH RESULTED IN A JURY VERDICT FAVORABLE TO MY CLIENT--A MONEY JUDGMENT--WHICH IS NOW ON APPEAL. I'VE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS TO TRY ACCIDENT CASES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN AIKEN. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN TRIALS BEFORE THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. SO IT'S A VARIED PRACTICE, ANYWHERE FROM ACCIDENTS TO CONTRACTS AND PERSONAL INJURY.
Q     WHAT COURTS HAVE YOU TRIED COURSES IN?
A     THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY, THE FAMILY COURT, MAGISTRATES' COURTS, MUNICIPAL COURTS OF THIS STATE.
Q     YOU INDICATE ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, QUESTION NUMBER 14, THAT ABOUT 99 PERCENT OF YOUR PRACTICE IS IN STATE COURT, WITH VERY LIMITED PRACTICE IN FEDERAL COURT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     VERY LIMITED. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO, AS I REMEMBER. ONE WAS A CRIMINAL MATTER AND ONE WAS, AGAIN, ON A CONTRACT INVOLVING AN ODOMETER.
Q     QUESTION NUMBER 13, YOU GIVE YOUR MARTINDALE-HUBBLE RATING AS A BV. DOES THAT CONTINUE TO BE CORRECT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT RATING, WHAT IT REPRESENTS?
A     GOOD EXPERIENCE, A GOOD RATING. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT, THE HIGHEST RATING YOU COULD OBTAIN--IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING--IS AN AV, AND I THINK THAT GENERALLY WILL COME WITH TIME AND EXPERIENCE AND MAYBE EVEN A MORE VARIED PRACTICE THAN WHAT I'VE HAD. IT'S A GOOD RATING, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I BELIEVE THAT'S OBTAINED BY THEM INTERVIEWING CERTAIN PEOPLE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
Q     YOU INDICATE ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU HAVE ONE CHILD, AGE 16, WHICH I'D GUESS TO BE AN AGE CLOSE TO EMANCIPATION, BUT I WILL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION I'VE ASKED OTHER FOLKS. ARE YOUR FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES GOING TO IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH YOUR SERVICE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS?
A     ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE A WIFE WHO HAS KEPT OUR HOME AND HELPED RAISE OUR CHILD. AND PARTICULARLY, HAVING BEEN IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW, A LOT OF TIMES YOU CAN WORK LATE HOURS AND ARE NOT THERE, AND THEN WHEN YOU COMPLICATE THAT WITH THE POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES I HAVE HAD, I DON'T THINK I'LL HAVE ANY PROBLEMS IN ADJUSTING MY SCHEDULE TO BE THERE FOR MY FAMILY.
Q     ON THE MATTER OF YOUR HEALTH, WOULD YOU BRIEFLY STATE FOR THE COMMITTEE THE STATE OF YOUR HEALTH, AND IF IT WOULD IN ANY WAY LIMIT YOUR SERVICE?
A     I BELIEVE IT IS EXCELLENT, AND I KNOW OF NO LIMITATIONS IT WOULD PLACE ON MY SERVICE.
Q     YOU HEARD ASKED A NUMBER OF TIMES OF THE CANDIDATES, "DESCRIBE YOUR TYPICAL WORK DAY ON THE COURT OF APPEALS." WHAT WOULD BE YOUR WORK DAY?
A     WELL, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT YOU ARE NOT TRYING CASES, BUT CERTAINLY ARE INVOLVED WITH A LOT OF READING AND REVIEW, I WOULD TRY TO GET THERE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9:00 IN THE MORNINGS--POSSIBLY EARLIER WHEN THE SCHEDULE WOULD DICTATE. I WOULD ANTICIPATE I WOULD BE LONGER THERE IN THE AFTERNOONS. TO ME, THAT IS A BETTER QUIET TIME. THAT'S USUALLY WHEN I AM MORE PRODUCTIVE, AFTER THE SESSIONS HAVE ENDED. THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT I DO NOW. A LOT OF MY WORK IS DONE IN THE EVENINGS AND ON THE WEEKENDS.
Q     QUESTION NUMBER 20 ASKS IF YOU HAVE EVER HELD A JUDICIAL OFFICE, AND YOU STATE IT'S NOT APPLICABLE. YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN HERE LAST WEEK AND HEARD THE QUESTION I ASKED OF MR. HAGOOD, AS TO HOW COULD HE EXPLAIN HIS RATING WITH THE BAR, IN VIEW OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE HAD GOING, AT LEAST FROM HIS PAPERWORK. HE ATTRIBUTED, TO SOME DEGREE, THAT THE BAR WAS LOOKING FOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE TO SERVE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, IN SERVICE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT OR NOT IMPORTANT?
A     WELL, I THINK CERTAINLY IT CAN BE AN ASSET. ANYTIME YOU SIT IN JUDGMENT OF A CONTROVERSY OR PEOPLE, YOU GAIN CERTAIN QUALITIES AND ATTRIBUTES THAT YOU MAY NOT OTHERWISE BE EXPOSED TO IN YOUR PRACTICE OF LAW, SO I THINK IT IS A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED. I DON'T THINK IT'S A PARAMOUNT FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED. OTHERWISE--IF THAT IS THE LITMUS TEST--YOU LOSE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DRAW UPON, I THINK, A VARIED AND BRIGHT PRACTICING BAR, IF, IN FACT, THAT'S THE ONLY CRITERIA.
Q     IN THE AREA OF ACADEMIC WORK, MR. HUFF, HAVE YOU HAD ANY EXPERIENCE TEACHING C.L.E.'S OR PREPARING WRITINGS OR PUBLISHING WORKS RELATED TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW?
A     I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN GIVING LEGISLATIVE UPDATES ON FAMILY LAW WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRIAL LAWYERS, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS--THREE TO FOUR TIMES AS I REMEMBER. I SPOKE AT SEMINARS INVOLVING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE TORT REFORM SEVERAL YEARS AGO. ONE AMENDMENT I WANT TO MAKE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS THAT I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEACH BUSINESS LAW AT A SMALL LITTLE PRIVATE SCHOOL IN AUGUSTA, GEORGIA--PHILLIPS COLLEGE--AND I TAUGHT THAT FOR APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND A HALF.
Q     WHAT YEAR DID YOU TEACH AT PHILLIPS COLLEGE?
A     THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN 1978-77.
Q     MR. HUFF, YOU'VE SERVED IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY SINCE 1978. DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YOU'VE BEEN VERY MUCH INVOLVED WITH NOT ONLY MATTERS THAT AFFECT THE PRACTICE OF LAW, BUT ALSO MATTERS THAT AFFECT JUDGES AND THE ELECTION OF JUDGES. IF YOU WERE TO BE ELECTED AND ASCENDED TO THE BENCH, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT YOUR CAPABILITY OF (INDICATING) "GETTING ALONG" WITH THE OTHER JUDGES ON THE BENCH?
A     I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT I CAN BRING A UNIQUE PERCEPTION OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS--WHICH SOME JUDGES DO LACK--AND CERTAINLY, I BELIEVE--I THINK I WOULD BRING AN ATTITUDE OF ATTEMPTING TO COOPERATE WITH THE LEGISLATURE. AS YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, SOMETIMES WE'VE HAD CONFRONTATION THAT AROSE AND I'VE NOT AGREED. AND I THINK, CERTAINLY, WITH THAT EXPERIENCE, I CAN BRING AN ATTITUDE OF WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE. I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE CONTACTS HERE, AS FAR AS FRIENDS AND PEOPLE THAT I KNOW WITHIN THE PROCESS WHO DRAFT THOSE LAWS, WHO DEBATE THOSE LAWS, AND WHO WORK WITH THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, TO BE ABLE TO, I THINK, BUILD BRIDGES; BRIDGES THAT WILL HELP NOT ONLY THE JUDICIARY, BUT ALSO HELP THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE WHICH WILL HAVE TO PRACTICE UNDER THOSE RULES AND GUIDELINES AND THOSE STATUTES.
Q     THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATOR, AT LEAST TO MY VIEWPOINT, IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF A JUDGE, THOUGH BOTH ARE TRYING TO MAKE CHANGES IN PUBLIC POLICY. IS YOUR PERSONALITY SUITED TO THAT CHANGE IN TEMPO AND MANNER?
A     I HOPE IT IS. FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE AS LONG AS I HAVE--CONSIDERING THE DISTRICT I DO REPRESENT--AND I THINK, YES, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE BENCH GETS INTO PROBLEMS WHEN THEY TRY TO MAKE PUBLIC POLICY, AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT THE STATUTES AND APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTES THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE BEFORE THEM. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WHILE YOU MAY NOT ACCESS, BY YOUR LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE, CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES THAT WOULD MAKE YOU A BETTER JUDGE, I THINK CERTAINLY IT DOES AT LEAST HOLD YOU TO THE SCRUTINY OF THE PEOPLE. AND, IF ANYTHING, WITH THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THE BENCH IS WORKING IN TODAY, ALONG WITH THE PROFESSION OF LAW, SENSITIVITY TO PEOPLE I THINK IS GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL OVER THE NEXT DECADE, TO INSURE THAT BENCH AND THAT JUDICIARY MAINTAINS THAT CREDIBILITY.
Q     JUST AS A MATTER OF PERSONAL SATISFACTION, IN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON THE BENCH AND NOT IN THE WELL, BEING ABLE TO ARGUE, IS THAT GOING TO BE A SATISFYING EXPERIENCE FOR YOU?
A     THAT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT AND A LITTLE BIT HARDER, BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF MYSELF AS AT LEAST A RESPECTABLE ADVOCATE--NOT ONLY IN THE COURTROOM, BUT IN THE LEGISLATURE AT WELL. I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO MAKE ME MORE SENSITIVE TO THE ARGUMENTS THAT COME BEFORE ME BECAUSE, IN HAVING GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS, BOTH AS A LAWYER AND AS A LEGISLATOR, YOU HAVE TO KNOW BOTH SIDES OF YOUR ARGUMENT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE IT AND TO CONVINCE AND TO DEBATE THE ISSUE, IF YOU WILL, EVEN IF IT'S IN A BRIEF. SO I THINK, BY AND LARGE, MY TIME AND TENURE HERE WILL SERVE ME WELL, IF I AM SUCCESSFUL IN MY EFFORTS.
Q     YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU'VE HAD LIMITED EXPENDITURES. IN FACT, YOU INDICATED "NONE, TO DATE." YOU HEARD MY QUESTION TO THE CANDIDATE EARLIER. HAVE YOU MAILED OUT ANY LETTERS?
A     I'VE NOT MAILED OUT ANY LETTERS OR TAKEN ANY EFFORTS TO CONTACT PEOPLE, OTHER THAN INITIALLY WHEN WE CAME IN SESSION TO TELL THEM THAT I WAS INTERESTED. ONE OF THE THINGS, HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DEBATES ON THE ETHICS LAW THAT WE JUST RECENTLY PASSED, IS, WHILE OUR ETHICS LAWS MAY SAY THAT THERE'S NOT TO BE ANY DIRECT CONTACT OR SOLICITATION OF VOTES, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE MEANT--ALBEIT NOT SET UPON THE PAGES OF THAT STATUTE--WAS TO NOT HAVE ANY INDIRECT CONTACT EITHER, AND TO ALLOW THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO SEE THIS PROCESS WORK, GET THE RESULT OF ITS FINDINGS, AND THEN AND ONLY THEN TO APPROACH MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. AND I THINK IF ALL OF THE LEGISLATORS DID THAT, AND IF ANY CANDIDATE DID THAT, I THINK CERTAINLY THE PROCESS WOULD BE BETTER FOR IT. YOU WOULD NOT BE ASKING ME THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING ME NOW.
Q     YOU'VE ALSO HEARD ME ASK OTHER CANDIDATES THE QUESTION ABOUT CHANGING THE PROCEDURES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND I GUESS YOU'VE HAD THE BENEFIT OF HEARING THEIR ANSWERS. WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF THAT CHANGE AND WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO COUNTERACT ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS, IF YOU PERCEIVE THERE ARE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE CHANGE?
A     WELL, CERTAINLY, I THINK THE MORE MINDS YOU HAVE DELIBERATING ON AN ISSUE, THE BETTER THE DECISION WILL BE, BECAUSE EACH PERSON, AS A RESULT OF THEIR EXPERIENCES, THEIR TENURE, THEIR INTELLECT, CAN BRING TO THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THAT YOU MIGHT ALONE NOT HAVE. I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PROCESS WHERE ALL WERE INVOLVED, AS OPPOSED TO ONE BEING ASSIGNED AHEAD OF TIME. BUT IF THAT IS THE RULE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, THEN CERTAINLY I WOULD FOLLOW IT. BUT I WOULD, IF ALLOWED TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY, BE INVOLVED FROM DAY ONE AS FAR AS READING ALL OF THE MATERIALS AND FAMILIARIZING MYSELF, NOT ONLY WITH THE LEGAL ISSUES BUT ALSO THE FACTUAL ARGUMENTS THAT WERE RAISED IN THE LOWER COURTS.
Q     APPROACHING THE ISSUE OF WHEN YOU WOULD ISSUE AN OPINION IN WHICH YOU WOULD JOIN OTHER JUDGES TO FILE A CONCURRENCE OR FILE A DISSENT, WHAT WOULD ENTER INTO YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS WHEN YOU MAKE THAT DECISION?
A     WELL, AS IMPLICIT AS IT MAY SOUND, YOU KNOW, HAVING A CONCEPT OF WHAT IS RIGHT, AND IF THE RESULT IS WRONG OR THE METHODOLOGY USED TO OBTAIN THAT RESULT IS WRONG, I CERTAINLY WOULD DISSENT. I THINK, LIKEWISE, THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE HERE TODAY ARE VERY IMPORTANT; AND THAT IS, WHEN THE BENCH SPEAKS, THERE HAS TO BE SOME CLEAR DIRECTION AS TO WHAT THE DECISION IS, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED--AS INDICATED PRIOR TO THIS TIME--HAS OCCURRED WITH THE SUPREME COURT. AND, SO, CERTAINLY I WOULD NOT QUELL MY FEELINGS CONCERNING AN ISSUE, SIMPLY IN ORDER TO BE UNANIMOUS IN ANY DECISION.
Q     WHAT ARE YOUR LONG-TERM PLANS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW OR SERVICE ON THE BENCH?
A     WELL, I'VE ENJOYED THE PRACTICE OF LAW, QUITE FRANKLY. I'VE BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE I WAS BORN AND RAISED AND PRACTICED LAW AND HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW THERE. IF I AM ABLE TO GET ON THE BENCH, CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE TO STAY THERE. IT WOULD BE MY ULTIMATE GOAL TO RETIRE FROM THE BENCH, AND TO TAKE THE EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE THERE AND TO USE IT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OR MAYBE EVEN IN A TEACHING FASHION.
Q     WE'VE ALSO DISCUSSED IN THIS SERIES OF HEARINGS THE MINIMIS OR ZERO-TOLERANCE FINANCIAL INTEREST RULE FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGES. HOW WOULD YOU IMPLEMENT THE CANONS OF ETHICS AS THEY RELATE TO ACTIONS IN WHICH YOU MIGHT HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST?
A     WELL, CERTAINLY I THINK--FROM MY QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU PRESENTED AND MY FINANCIAL STATEMENT--ABOUT THE ONLY STOCK I HAVE IS MY REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN MY HOME AT 1751 GREGORY LAKE ROAD. CERTAINLY IF I HAD ANY ISSUE THAT WOULD POSE A CONFLICT TO ANY LAWYER THAT WOULD APPEAR IN FRONT OF ME, I WOULD CERTAINLY CHECK THE CANONS OF ETHICS WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO HAVE ME RECUSE MYSELF OR NOT HEAR THE CASE, BUT I WOULD ALSO MAKE THOSE LAWYERS AWARE OF ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS AND THEN PUT THAT BEFORE THEM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WISH TO MAKE THAT MOTION. AND I THINK THAT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH THEIR CLIENTS AND MAKE A DECISION, WITH ALL OF THE FACTS BEFORE THEIR CLIENT, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT I SHOULD CONTINUE. BUT CERTAINLY, EVEN WITH THE CANONS OF ETHICS BEING MET, EVEN WITH DISCLOSURE BEING MADE, IF I FELT THAT, IN ANY WAY, MY DECISION COULD BE COMPROMISED BY AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, I WOULD RECUSE MYSELF FROM HEARING THE CASE.
Q     EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE THAT THORNY PROBLEM IF YOU WERE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS?
A     VERY CAUTIOUSLY. I THINK THAT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE I APPROACHED THIS TABLE TODAY HAS BEEN FAIRLY ACCURATE; AND THAT IS, CERTAINLY WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE CONFERENCE CALLS, AND IT'S NOT VERY DIFFICULT TO DRAFT A LETTER TO BOTH COUNSEL AND INFORM THEM OF YOUR THOUGHT PROCESSES AND ASK THEM TO EITHER BOTH SUBMIT PROPOSED ORDERS OR TO ASK ONE TO DRAFT AN ORDER AND HAVE IT SUBMITTED TO THE OTHER ATTORNEY. THAT HAPPENS TO ME A LOT IN MY PRACTICE NOW, QUITE FRANKLY. AND I'VE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE AN ORDER CONTRARY TO WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTED. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE A 59(E)'S AND THE RIGHTS TO MOTION THE COURT TO AMEND AND TO CHANGE ORDERS, AND I'VE EXERCISED THAT QUITE A BIT, AS WELL.
Q     IN THE AREA OF GIFTS. YOU'VE HEARD THOSE QUESTIONS, AS WELL, BEFORE, THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. WHAT RULE WOULD YOU IMPLEMENT?
A     I THINK THE BEST THING TO DO IN THAT REGARD IS NOT TO TAKE ANY GIFTS. ONCE YOU ESTABLISH THAT BASELINE, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANYBODY BEING OFFENDED OR FEELING THAT--AGAIN--YOU HAVE ROBITIS AND THAT YOU'VE GOT A DISTANCE FROM LAWYERS. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AND HOPE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN TO ME, IS THAT WHEN CERTAIN PEOPLE ASCEND TO THE BENCH--UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE CERTAIN CANONS OF ETHICS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE--THEY DON'T NEED TO LOSE THEIR HUMANITY AND THEIR SENSITIVITY AND THEIR ABILITY TO TALK WITH PEOPLE. CERTAINLY, AS FAR AS GIFTS ARE CONCERNED, I THINK IF YOU ESTABLISH THAT RULE UP FRONT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT EVER AGAIN.
Q     YOU ARE ON THE BENCH AND YOU ARE ASKED TO LUNCH BY AN ATTORNEY WHO DOESN'T OFTEN PRACTICE BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, BUT BELONGS TO A FIRM WHICH HAS MEMBERS THAT PRACTICE BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS. DO YOU ALLOW HIM TO PAY FOR YOUR LUNCH?
A     NO, I WOULD NOT.
Q     YOU ARE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS AND YOU ARE INVITED TO GO QUAIL HUNTING WITH TWO ATTORNEYS. DO YOU GO?
A     NO, I WOULD NOT. AND LET ME EXPLAIN FURTHER ON THAT. I HAVE MADE A PRACTICE, EVEN IN MY POLITICAL EXPERIENCE, TO LIMIT WHERE I GO, BECAUSE OF THE DEBATES THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR CREDIBILITY AND YOUR INTEGRITY, AND EVEN IF IT'S INNOCENT, EVEN IF IT'S LEGAL, SOMETIMES IT'S NOT PROPER, BECAUSE THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE GAUGING THE CONDUCT THAT YOU ENGAGE IN THAT MAY APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAN YOU. SO BETTER NOT TO HAVE THE QUESTION RAISED, AND TO BOW OUT GRACEFULLY AND MAKE YOUR THANK-YOU'S TO THEM.
Q     MR. HUFF, THE QUESTIONS I'VE ASKED OTHER CANDIDATES ON PLEDGING, I WOULD LIKE TO NOW ASK YOU, IN THE MATTER OF ASKING FOR YOUR PLEDGE THAT YOU EITHER AFFIRMATIVELY HAVE TAKEN THESE ACTIONS OR THAT YOU HAVE NOT. ONE IS, AS A CANDIDATE, HAVE YOU SOUGHT THE PLEDGE OF A LEGISLATOR'S VOTE PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE SCREENING PROCESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLEDGE SOUGHT WAS CONDITIONAL?
A     ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q     HAVE YOU ASKED ANY OTHER PERSON OR AUTHORIZED ANY OTHER PERSON TO SEEK SUCH PLEDGES?
A     ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q     MR. HUFF, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE THAT HAS AGREED TO ORCHESTRATE OR FIND VOTES FOR YOU IN ANY ORGANIZED FASHION?
A     NO, I'M NOT. I'M HOPING THERE WILL BE SOME THERE AFTER THIS SCREENING REPORT, IF I'M SUCCESSFUL; BUT, NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q     WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE AND YOU'VE SERVED ON THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NEXT 25 OR 30 YEARS, WHAT WILL FOLKS SAY ABOUT JUDGE HUFF?
A     WELL, I HOPE THEY SAY--AND I THINK THE GREATEST COMPLIMENT WOULD BE--THAT HE WAS FAIR IN HIS DELIBERATIVE PROCESS; THAT HE HAD NO ENEMY TO HARM AND NO FRIEND TO REWARD; THAT HE HAD A WORK ETHIC THAT EXHIBITED THAT HE WAS PREPARED, THAT HE WAS THOROUGH IN HIS QUESTIONS, AND THAT HE WAS PRECISE AND TO THE POINT IN HIS DECISIONS; AND THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHO MIGHT COME BEFORE HIM, THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE A FAIR HEARING.
Q     MR. HUFF, TO YOUR CREDIT TODAY I THINK YOU'VE INDICATED ON EACH OF THESE ETHICS QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD TAKE THE MORE NARROW AND, PERHAPS, MORE DIFFICULT STANDARD--WHETHER IT BE GIFTS, EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, ET CETERA--AND MADE A STRONG COMMITMENT TO BEING A FAIR JUDGE WHO ABIDES BY THE CANONS. ONE OTHER ASPECT OF A JUDGE'S SERVICE IS THAT YOU WANT BRIGHT JUDGES, BUT JUDGES WHO CAN UNDERSTAND THE LAW, APPLY THE LAW, PERHAPS IN SOME UNIQUE FASHION. THROUGH YOUR COMMENTS IN THE NEWS MEDIA OVER THE PAST WEEK, IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT AT LEAST IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BAR RATED YOU NOT QUALIFIED FOR YOUR JUDGESHIP BECAUSE THEY SAW SOME EXPERIENCE AND--IN READING BETWEEN THE LINES--JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE LACKING, AND PERHAPS JUST TRIAL EXPERIENCE; BUT ALSO, THEY MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE NOT THE PHI BETA KAPPA THAT YOU OUGHT TO BE. WHEN YOU REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU DO SEE THAT YOU HAVE HAD SIX APPELLATE CASES; YOU DO SEE THAT YOU HAVE HAD SOME TRIAL WORK, BUT YOU'VE ALSO BEEN AN ATTORNEY FOR A GOOD WHILE. WHAT SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE DO AND WHO SHOULD IT TALK TO, TO CONVINCE ITSELF THAT YOU ARE A BRIGHT, CAPABLE TRIAL ATTORNEY CAPABLE OF SERVING ON THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH DISTINCTION?
A     MY WIFE, PROBABLY. I THOUGHT THAT, IN GIVING THE REFERENCES TO THIS COMMITTEE AND TO THE BAR, I TRIED--AND I THINK, IF YOU SEE THOSE NAMES THERE--TO GIVE THIS COMMITTEE AN OVERVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SEEN ME AS A LAWYER, WHO HAVE SEEN ME IN THE COURTROOM, WHO HAVE SEEN ME ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THEM, BEING OPPOSING COUNSEL, AND JUDGES WHO HAVE SEEN ME ARGUE AND PREPARE CASES. I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE I COULD HAVE GIVEN THEM, OR WHAT NAMES I COULD HAVE GIVEN THEM TO SHOW WHO I AM. THERE'S NO WAY I CLAIM TO BE THE MOST ARTICULATE PERSON THAT MAY COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE--OR THE BRIGHTEST PERSON, FOR THAT MATTER--BUT I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT COURT IS MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE VARIED EXPERIENCES IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LAW AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRACTICE, AND THAT IS WHAT HAS MADE THE COURT, I THINK, A VERY GOOD COURT. THEY'VE HAD A MELDING OF THOSE DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES, THOSE DIFFERENT INTELLECTS, THOSE DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES. I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD DEMAND PERFECTION FROM ANY CANDIDATE WHO OFFERS FOR THE BENCH. IT'S THE FAILURES OF LIFE, IT'S THE INEQUITIES OF INTELLECT OR EXPERIENCE THAT MAKE THAT BODY A BRIGHT BODY AS A WHOLE. CERTAINLY, I WAS DISAPPOINTED IN WHAT HAD OCCURRED, AND CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK THAT THE ONLY LITMUS TEST SHOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT ONE HAS SAT ON THE BENCH. AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THERE ARE A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN ON THAT COURT THAT DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE LAW, BUT THEY BROUGHT THEMSELVES TO THE BENCH, AND I THOUGHT--AND STILL THINK--THAT THEY ARE VERY BRIGHT JUDGES. I WISH I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT THE TOTAL STORY THAT WAS PRESENTED, AND BY WHOM, AND IN WHAT CONTEXT, AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT, BUT I DID NOT.
Q     PUTTING ASIDE THE ISSUE, FOR A MOMENT, OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, WHICH I THINK I FIND NO REASON TO DEFINE THAT AS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE EXPERIENCE FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN THAT FOUR OF THE SIX JUDGES HAD NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE BEFORE THEY WENT ON FOR THEIR FIRST ROUND, AND TAKING FOR A MOMENT THAT YOUR WITNESSES HOPEFULLY WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH YOUR TRIAL EXPERIENCE; AS COUNSEL I'M LEFT IN A LITTLE BIT OF A QUANDARY, THOUGH, ABOUT HOW TO ESTABLISH YOUR ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS. I ALMOST FEEL COMPELLED TO ASK YOU TO GO THROUGH AND TELL HOW YOU PREPARE FOR A CASE, AND MAKE SURE YOU CITE THE RIGHT BOOKS AND THAT YOU KNOW HOW TO SHEPHERDIZE A CASE AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND THAT WOULD REALLY BE BORDERING ON THE RIDICULOUS, BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR JUST TRYING TO CONVINCE ME AND CONVINCE THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU DO HAVE THE ACADEMIC TALENT TO BECOME A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF THE COURT.
A     WELL, LET ME SAY THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE DRAWN ON IN MY PRACTICE OF LAW IS THE ADVANTAGE I THINK I HAVE HAD BY BEING IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; AND THAT IS, BEING ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF HOW THE LAW MAY BE DEVELOPING. HAVING HEARD FROM LAWYERS AROUND THE STATE, ON THE COMMITTEES THAT I'VE CHAIRED--AND I WAS INVOLVED IN TORT REFORM; I CHAIRED THE COMMITTEE THAT DEALT WITH TORT REFORM--I LEARNED MORE ABOUT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE THAN I EVER WANTED TO HEAR, AND AS FAR AS THE TESTS AND CASE LAW THAT WOULD APPLY IN THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS. WITH REGARD TO THE AREA OF FAMILY COURT LAW, AGAIN, I WAS A CO-SPONSOR OF THE EQUITABLE DIVISION STATUTE THAT PASSED IN THIS STATE; AND AGAIN, HAD THE ADVANTAGE TO HEAR FROM A BROAD SPECTRUM OF THE BAR AS TO HOW THEY FELT THAT STATUTE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. I WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW STATUTES: THE FORFEITURE LAWS, THE D.U.I. LAWS THAT ARE STILL EVOLVING IN THIS STATE, AND THE CRIMINAL LAWS, AS WELL. IF ANYTHING, I THINK I'VE HAD SUCH A VARIED EXPERIENCE, NOT ONLY IN MY PRACTICE, AS YOU'VE SEEN IN MY QUESTIONNAIRE--AND YOU DON'T CHAIR THOSE COMMITTEES, YOU DON'T DRAFT LEGISLATION, YOU DON'T PRACTICE IN THE COURTS OF THIS STATE SUCCESSFULLY--AND I THINK I'VE HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL PRACTICE--WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE LAW, AND NOT BEING PREPARED TO REPRESENT YOUR CLIENTS. AND I THINK I BRING A WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE AND INSIGHTFULNESS INTO THE STATUTES OF THIS STATE. AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, ONE'S EDUCATION IS NEVER COMPLETE ANYWAY. THERE'S ALWAYS THAT DRIVE TO BE BETTER. THERE'S ALWAYS THAT DRIVE TO KNOW MORE. IT'S THE LAWYERS THAT PUT THEMSELVES INTO A NICHE OR PRACTICE ONE AREA OF THE LAW IN A REDUNDANT FASHION--IS THE TYPE OF LAWYER I'VE NEVER WANTED TO BE.
Q     THAT CERTAINLY LEADS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION. YOU NOTE THAT YOU ARE A SOLE PRACTITIONER AND YOU COVER A WIDE AREA OF THE LAW, AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY LEAVE ONE OPEN, I THINK, TO THE CRITICISM THAT YOU'RE A MILE WIDE AND AN INCH DEEP. NOT REFERRING ESPECIALLY TO YOU, BUT ANY SOLE PRACTITIONER IS SUBJECT TO THAT CRITICISM. IN FACT, ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST YOU BY THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY IS THAT YOU DID NOT DO ENOUGH OF YOUR HOMEWORK ON FILING A FORM BEFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, AND IT CERTAINLY LEADS ONE TO QUESTION WHETHER IT WAS AN AREA THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD, AND DID YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK ENOUGH IN THAT AREA. JUST GENERALLY, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE COMPLAINANT'S--OR ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC INCIDENCE, DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERTISE IN ANY PARTICULAR AREAS OR HOW HAVE YOU HAD TO GO ABOUT DEVELOPING EXPERTISE BEFORE? HOW DID YOU DO IT?
A     WELL, I CERTAINLY THINK I HAVE AN EXPERTISE IN THE FAMILY COURT AREA, BECAUSE I DO A LOT OF PRACTICE THERE, HAVE DONE A LOT OF PRACTICE THERE. I THINK I HAVE A GENERAL EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF WORKMEN'S COMP. IF ANYONE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE TYPE OF CASE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY WITH REGARD TO THAT COMPLAINANT, THAT IS A VERY DIFFICULT AREA OF WORKMEN'S COMP WHEN YOU GET INTO LUNG PROBLEMS, AND PROVING THEM IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. THERE WAS RATHER EXTENSIVE PREPARATION IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE. HAVE LIMITED EXPERIENCE IN THE CRIMINAL AREA OF LAW. I HAVE TRIED D.U.I. CASES. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN DRUG CASES INVOLVING THE RAID TEAMS OF THIS STATE, PARTICULARLY IN THE EDGEFIELD AREA, WITH THE PEACH GROWERS AND THEIR MIGRANT WORKERS THERE. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A FEDERAL CASE INVOLVING TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA OF THE LAW, AS WELL. BECAUSE YOU HANDLE ONE CASE DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE NOT A GOOD LAWYER IN ANY PARTICULAR AREA OF THE LAW. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE HANDLING OF THAT CASE, YOU PREPARED TO REPRESENT THAT CLIENT, BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE SUFFERED THE LOSS OF THEIR LIBERTIES OR THE LOSS OF THEIR PROPERTIES. THAT'S AN AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY AND I'VE NEVER TAKEN IT LIGHTLY. AND IF ANYTHING, SOMETIMES I TEND TO OVERPREPARE AND OVERLOAD, AND THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO BACK AWAY, ABSORB THE INFORMATION, REDUCE IT TO ITS SIMPLEST COMPONENTS AND BE PREPARED TO ARGUE. AND I THINK THOSE SAME THINGS ARE REQUIRED OF YOU AS A JUDGE. BUT AS TO THE PARTICULAR INSTANCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, HER INTERPRETATION IS THAT I WAS NOT PREPARED. I THINK THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GAUGE THAT IS THE RESULT, AND I THINK THE RESULT WAS RATHER SIGNIFICANT. THE RESULT WAS ONE WHERE ONE WAS FOUND TO BE TOTALED, AND THE MONETARY REWARD I THINK WAS RATHER SIGNIFICANT. JUST AS AN ASIDE, I HAD SOMEONE CALL ME AFTER THAT ARTICLE BROKE AND SAID, "IF THAT'S WHAT YOU GET DOING A BAD JOB, LET ME GET YOU ON A GOOD DAY." AND I THINK ALL I CAN SAY WITH REGARD TO THAT COMPLAINT IS THAT THERE'S NOT AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OCCURRED, AND THE JUDGMENT IS IN ERROR.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE FOUR PRINCIPAL COMPLAINTS OF MS. CAROLYN ANDERSON BAZZLE. MS. BAZZLE IS PRESENT WITH US TODAY. SHE WILL CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE COMPLAINT AND DISCUSS IT, A LITTLE BIT LATER, BUT I THINK IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH MY QUESTIONING OF MR. HUFF, IT MAY BE WELL FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION ABOUT IT. MS. BAZZLE, IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT LISTS, "STATE THE NATURE OF YOUR TESTIMONY REGARDING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ABOVE-NAMED JUDICIAL CANDIDATE INCLUDING SPECIFIC FACTS, SPECIFIC DATES, NAMES OF PERSONS PRESENT DURING SUCH ALLEGED ACTIONS AND HOW THIS INFORMATION RELATES TO QUALIFICATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CANDIDATE," HAS CHOSEN TO ENUMERATE FOUR SPECIFIC INSTANCES. SHE ALSO LISTS FOR THE COMMITTEE'S BENEFIT 22 WITNESSES THAT COULD BE CALLED BY THE COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDIBILITY OF HER ALLEGATIONS. HER ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE IS THAT IN FILING HER OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE INJURY DUE TO TOXIC CHEMICALS EXPOSURE ON THE FORM 50, THAT MR. HUFF FILLED OUT THE FORM WRONG, IN THAT SHE SUFFERED CHEMICALS TO THE WHOLE BODY, NOT JUST TO LUNGS/RESPIRATORY DISEASE, AND THAT--AND I'M KIND OF PARAPHRASING HERE TO MAKE IT PLAIN TO THE COMMITTEE MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT--THIS WAS IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER AS A CLAIMANT NAMED BOBBY L. DAVIS WHO ALSO HAD FILED A FORM NUMBER 50, WHO HAD SUFFERED JUST LUNG INJURY; AND THAT, IN FILING THE FORM IN THE MANNER YOU DID (TO WITNESS), YOU LIMITED HER LONG-TERM CAPABILITY TO RECEIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT. THE GRAVAMEN OF HER COMPLAINT IS THAT HER INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LISTED AS A LUNGS INJURY, BUT AS A WHOLE-BODY INJURY. THE SECOND COMPLAINT IS THAT DATES ON PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS ARE LISTED WRONG FROM MAY 2, 1983--(TO WITNESS) WHICH IS, I GUESS, REALLY THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REPRESENTATION OF MS. BAZZLE--THROUGH MAY 20, 1991, EVEN UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME. IN TALKING WITH MS. BAZZLE, IT IS HER ALLEGATION THAT YOU HAVE FALSIFIED DATES ON PAPERS FILED WITH COURTS, COMMISSIONS AND OTHERS. NUMBER THREE, "MR. THOMAS E. HUFF HAS WORKED ON MY CASE INJURY FROM MAY 2, 1983..." AND THAT YOU TOOK THE CASE FROM MR. FRANKLIN D. BEATTY, JR., AND THAT YOU ACCUSED MR. BEATTY OF CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT--AND I WILL NOT REPEAT THAT HERE; MR. BEATTY IS NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF, AND I FOUND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ALLEGATIONS, AND I WOULD ADVISE MS. BAZZLE THAT COUNSEL DOES NOT INTEND TO LIST THAT INFORMATION, AS WELL--THAT YOU PROMISED TO BE HONEST AND HARDWORKING ON HER CASE, AND THAT YOU WOULD NEVER CHARGE MORE THAN THE LEGAL ONE-THIRD OF THE CASE, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MORE MONEY EVER CHARGED, AND THAT YOU SAID IT WAS NOT EVER LEGAL TO CHARGE MORE MONEY. AND FINALLY, THE FOURTH IS THAT YOU, YOUR BROTHER, MR. ROS HUFF, AND YOUR OTHER BROTHER, MR. JAMES HUFF, VIOLATED THE CODE OF ETHICS IN YOUR CASE, IN THAT YOU COOPERATED IN THIS MATTER WHEREIN MR. JIM HUFF--JAMES HUFF, YOUR BROTHER--HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN A MATTER RELATING TO A PHARMACY IN AIKEN, AND THAT MR. ROS HUFF, AT THE TIME HE WAS ASSISTING YOU ON THIS CASE, AS ALLEGED BY HER, WAS ALSO EMPLOYED BY THE STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND. AND IN DISCUSSING THIS CHARGE WITH MS. BAZZLE, IT'S HER ALLEGATION THAT MR. HUFF ATTEMPTED TO USE HIS OFFICIAL AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY TO BENEFIT YOU IN THIS CASE. WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE. ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO, IN TERMS OF DATES, I WOULD ADVISE YOU, MR. HUFF, THAT I INTEND TO ASK MS. BAZZLE ABOUT THAT. IF YOU WOULD BEGIN TO PREPARE OR HAVE DOCUMENTS, IF YOU CHOOSE, TO ANSWER ANY OF HER ALLEGATIONS. ON ALLEGATION NUMBER THREE, IN TERMS OF WHETHER YOU TOOK THE CASE FROM MR. BEATTY AND THAT YOU OVERCHARGED HER, I HAVE ORDERS FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION THAT GO TOWARD THE SECOND PART OF THAT ALLEGATION. I DO NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL THAT I HAVE DEVELOPED, ASIDE FROM WHAT MS. BAZZLE HAS PROVIDED ME, THAT GO TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER YOU TOOK THE CASE FROM MR. BEATTY. ON THE FINAL ISSUE, IN TERMS OF THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST ISSUE, IT INVOLVES YOURSELF AND YOUR TWO BROTHERS. I HAVE NOT UNTIL THIS TIME ADVISED YOU OR THEM OF YOUR RIGHTS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS. THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT HERE TODAY, AND I WOULD TAKE IT THAT IF ANY FORMAL ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT COME UP, THEY WOULD NEED TO PURSUE THEIR OWN INTERESTS AT THAT POINT. MR. CHAIRMAN, IN ORDER TO PROTECT MS. BAZZLE'S RIGHTS TO OFFER HER COMPLAINT BEFORE MR. HUFF RESPONDS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I HAVE CONCLUDED WITH MR. HUFF, FOR THE TIME BEING. I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK HIM SUBSTANTIAL AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, ONCE MS. BAZZLE HAS TESTIFIED.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT OF ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
SENATOR MOORE: I DO.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MR. HUFF, DO YOU RECALL THE DATE YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE BAR?
A     I BELIEVE IT WAS ON A WEDNESDAY. I'M THINKING IT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO TOMORROW.
Q     HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE BAR WERE PRESENT?
A     THERE WERE TWO PRESENT.
Q     DO YOU RECALL WHERE THEY RESIDE OR--
A     ONE WAS FROM ANDERSON, AND I BELIEVE THE OTHER WAS FROM CHARLESTON.
Q     DID THEY MAKE ANY COMMENT AS TO--DID THEY TELL YOU WHEN THEY WOULD PUBLISH THE FINDINGS?
A     NO, THEY DID NOT. THEY SIMPLY SAID THEY WOULD MAKE THEIR REPORTS BACK TO--QUOTE, UNQUOTE--"THE FULL COMMITTEE."
Q     WAS THERE ANY UNDERSTANDING ON YOUR PART THAT THE PUBLICATION OF THE RATING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS COMMITTEE, WAS DISCUSSED?
A     THE ONLY THING THAT I KNEW WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SUBMIT THEIR RATINGS TO THE COMMITTEE.
Q     NO SPECIFICS AS TO WHEN, OR AFTER THE SCREENING OR PRIOR TO THE SCREENING OR DURING THE SCREENING?
A     SENATOR MOORE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY WERE GOING TO SUBMIT THEM TO YOU THE SAME DAY SCREENING STARTED. SO I WOULD ASSUME IT WAS GOING TO BE THAT MORNING, PRIOR TO ANYBODY BEING SCREENED.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:

Q     MR. HUFF, WHERE DID THE INTERVIEW OCCUR?
A     IT OCCURRED AT THE BAR OFFICES HERE IN COLUMBIA, AT EIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.
Q     DID THEY REQUEST YOU TO SUPPLY THEM WITH ANY INFORMATION, OTHER THAN THE REFERENCES THAT YOU SPOKE OF EARLIER?
A     THEY DID NOT. THEY SIMPLY ASKED ME TO BE PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
Q     WHILE YOU WERE BEING ASKED THE QUESTIONS, WAS ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS OR ANYONE ELSE IN ATTENDANCE WHILE THIS WAS OCCURRING?
A     NO, JUST THE TWO PEOPLE FROM THE BAR THAT WERE INTERVIEWING ME. THAT'S THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WERE PRESENT.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: THANK YOU.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     WERE THERE NAMES OF PEOPLE YOU PROVIDED THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE WEREN'T TALKED TO?
A     MOST DEFINITELY. ONE OF MY REFERENCES ON THURSDAY MORNING, PRIOR TO THE TUESDAY WHEN THE SCREENING COMMENCED HERE, WAS CONTACTED LATE THAT AFTERNOON OR EARLY EVENING. THE OTHER REFERENCE WAS NEVER CONTACTED. WE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AT MY OFFICE ON FRIDAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS ON THE 30TH--NO, EXCUSE ME, 4/23, I BELIEVE.
(TO SENATOR MOORE) MY MEETING, MR. MOORE, WAS 4/22--NO, EXCUSE ME. 4/22, I HAD A FOLLOW-UP CONFERENCE.
BUT MS. STACY CALLED MY OFFICE FRIDAY MORNING LOOKING FOR ONE OF MY REFERENCES, AND I INFORMED HER THAT SHE WAS ON A MISSION'S TRIP TO, I BELIEVE, LOUISIANA OR MISSISSIPPI, BUT THAT SHE MAY WISH TO CALL THE EMPLOYER WHO I FELT QUITE SURE HAD A MEANS TO COMMUNICATE WITH HER. I SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND OUT, ABOUT THE FIRST OF NEXT WEEK, THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN CONTACTED AT ALL.
Q     WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF WHO WERE NOT TALKED TO, THAT YOU PROVIDED THE NAMES OF TO THE BAR?
A     NO, BECAUSE I DID NOT GO BACK AND ASK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF MY REFERENCES IF THEY HAD BEEN CONTACTED, AND QUITE FRANKLY ONLY WENT BACK AND ASKED THAT QUESTION OF MY REFERENCES AFTER THE REPORT OF THE BAR COMMITTEE HAD BEEN RELEASED. I JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS PROPER TO GO BACK AND INQUIRE AS TO WHAT THEY WERE ASKED OR WHAT THEY TOLD SOMEONE, BECAUSE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN CONFIDENCE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: SENATOR?

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MR. HUFF, WHEN THE BAR CONTACTED YOU TO GIVE YOU THIS EVALUATION, DID THEY SPEND ANY TIME AS TO THE WHY?
A     NO. I RECEIVED A LETTER SIMPLY SAYING THAT, AS A RESULT OF THEIR INVESTIGATION, THEY WERE SORRY TO REPORT THAT I WOULD BE FOUND UNQUALIFIED. I CAN ONLY GATHER FROM--AND I HAD A CONVERSATION, AS INDICATED IN MY LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO ME BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE--HE PAID ME THE COURTESY OF CALLING ME ON FRIDAY MORNING TO TELL ME OF THE RESULTS, AND HAD INDICATED AT THAT TIME THAT THE RESULTS WOULD THEN BE SENT OUT FORMALLY THE FIRST OF THE NEXT WEEK, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASED TO THE FULL COMMITTEE. I DID NOT HAVE ANY APPRECIATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE IN PUBLIC, JUST THAT THEY WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE. IT WAS MY IMPRESSION THAT THE LACK OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE WAS ONE OF THEM, AND THE LACK OF APPELLATE EXPERIENCE--WHICH I FOUND SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL, TO SAY THE LEAST, HAVING RESEARCHED MY RECORD AFTER THAT.AND I THEN HAD A FOLLOW-UP MEETING ON THURSDAY MORNING. MR. ALEXANDER ASKED ME WHEN I MET, AND IT WAS THAT WEDNESDAY MORNING AT EIGHT O'CLOCK. I WAS CONTACTED BY MS. STACY ON THURSDAY MORNING AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE A FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW WITH ME BY WAY OF A CONFERENCE CALL, AND I WENT TO MY OFFICE IN THE BLATT BUILDING AND HAD IT THERE AT ABOUT 11:15. THEY THEN RAISED SOME ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT SUPPOSEDLY CAME UP DURING THE COMMITTEE, AND I HAD TO RESPOND TO THOSE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE:

Q     MR. HUFF, WHEN THEY ASKED YOU TO GIVE THEM THE REFERENCES AND THAT KIND OF THING. HOW FAR IN ADVANCE DID YOU PROVIDE THEM THAT INFORMATION FROM--
A     THEY NEEDED THOSE REFERENCES BY--I THINK THEY SAID--NO LATER THAN APRIL 6TH, AND I THINK WE PREPARED OUR LETTER AND IT WAS DATED APRIL 4TH, AND SENT OUT; I ASSUME THEY RECEIVED IT ON THE 5TH. WE MAY HAVE FAXED IT TO THEM THAT DAY--I'M JUST NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT WE MAY HAVE FAXED IT TO THEM THAT SAME DAY.
Q     SO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD IT, WHAT, ABOUT A WEEK PRIOR TO YOUR--
A     MAYBE TWO WEEKS.
Q     MAYBE TWO WEEKS?
A     MAYBE TWO WEEKS. I INTERVIEWED WITH THEM ON THE 21ST, SO IF THEY RECEIVED IT ON THE 6TH, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD AT LEAST TWO WEEKS TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT.
Q     AND DURING YOUR MEETING WITH THE BAR, WAS THERE ANY INDICATION AT THAT TIME THAT THEY HAD CONTACTED ANY OF YOUR REFERENCES AT THAT POINT IN TIME?
A     THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC NAMES MENTIONED; JUST, YOU KNOW, "BASED UPON SOME OF OUR INTERVIEWS, THIS IS SOME QUESTIONS WE'D LIKE YOU TO ANSWER," SO I WOULD ASSUME THEY CONTACTED SOMEBODY. NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WERE SPECIFICALLY MY REFERENCES, OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, I DON'T KNOW; THEY WOULD NOT TELL ME.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     IN YOUR TWO DISCUSSIONS OR MEETINGS WITH THE BAR, WHETHER BY TELEPHONE OR FACE TO FACE, HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE WERE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS?
A     JUST TWO. THERE WAS ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL THAT, BECAUSE OF SOME HEALTH PROBLEMS, FAMILY PROBLEMS, OR SOMETHING, WAS NOT PRESENT. I WAS ONLY INTERVIEWED BY TWO.
Q     WERE THERE EVER MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED IN--HOW ABOUT, YOU MENTIONED A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION?
A     THERE WERE ONLY TWO, EVEN IN THE PHONE CONFERENCE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: SENATOR?

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MR. HUFF, THAT TELEPHONE CALL, WAS IT WITH THE SAME TWO PEOPLE?
A     SAME TWO PEOPLE. AND DURING THAT CONVERSATION, THEY BASICALLY INDICATED THAT CERTAIN THINGS THEY FOUND MERIT IN; OTHERS THEY DIDN'T--WELL, THEY MENTIONED THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THEY FOUND NO MERIT IN, AS FAR AS CERTAIN THINGS THAT HAD BEEN SAID, BUT THEN THERE WERE CERTAIN COMMENTS THAT THEY WANTED ME TO RESPOND TO DIRECTLY. AND THEY BASICALLY GAVE ME A QUOTE OF WHAT THOSE RESPONSES WERE AND ASKED ME TO RESPOND TO THEM. THEY SAID, "THIS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS," QUOTE. "WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THAT?"--WHICH IS DIFFICULT, BUT I DID THE BEST I COULD.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     LET ME ASK YOU, YOU SAID THAT FRIDAY OR THURSDAY WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU LEARNED OF YOUR POTENTIAL RATING?
A     FRIDAY, LATE AFTERNOON, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AND I WAS TOLD THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD VOTED AND THAT WAS DETERMINED TO BE MY RATING, AND THAT I WOULD GET A FOLLOW-UP LETTER, I BELIEVE, THE NEXT TUESDAY--WHICH WAS WHEN THE SCREENING COMMENCED HERE--AND I DID, IN FACT, RECEIVE THAT LETTER TUESDAY.
Q     NOW, BETWEEN FRIDAY AND TUESDAY, DID YOU GET ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING YOUR RATING?
A     NO, I DID NOT.
Q     HOW ABOUT AFTER THE--HOW ABOUT ON TUESDAY? BESIDES THE BAR, DID YOU GET ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING YOUR RATING?
A     NO, I DID NOT. THE ONLY WAY I FOUND OUT WHAT THE RATINGS WERE WAS BY TALKING TO A MEMBER OF THE PRESS WHO HAD HAPPENED TO BE HERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT SCREENING THAT MORNING WHEN THEY WERE RELEASED. I DID NOT KNOW THE RATINGS UP UNTIL THAT TIME. OF COURSE, THEN WHEN I FOUND OUT WHAT THE RATINGS WERE, I WAS KIND OF SHOCKED WHEN I FOUND OUT THAT I WAS THE ONLY ONE FOUND UNQUALIFIED.
Q     MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DID YOU RELEASE YOUR RATING TO THE PRESS?
A     NO, I DID NOT.
Q     TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID YOU TELL ANYONE WHO COULD HAVE TOLD YOUR RATING TO THE PRESS?
A     WELL, OTHER THAN MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR SOME OF THE STAFF IN MY OFFICE, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY IT COULD GET OUT, AS FAR AS I KNOW, AND THEY ARE USUALLY UNDER STRICT ORDERS AS FAR AS CONFIDENCE--AND THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO GET OUT. I WAS QUITE EMBARRASSED AND VERY WITHDRAWN AFTER I RECEIVED THAT RATING. I DO KNOW THAT ON FRIDAY OR SATURDAY OF THAT WEEKEND, I THINK IT WAS FRIDAY--SATURDAY, I STARTED GETTING PHONE CALLS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PRESS.
Q     DID THOSE PHONE CALLS INDICATE THAT THEY KNEW THOSE RATINGS, OR NOT?
A     I DIDN'T RETURN THE PHONE CALLS AND I DIDN'T WANT TO. QUITE FRANKLY, I FELT THAT I WASN'T SUPPOSED TO UNTIL THEY OFFICIALLY RELEASED THEM TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, ASSUMING THAT Y'ALL, IN TURN, RELEASED THEM.
Q     WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HAD ANY INDICATION THAT THE PRESS KNEW OR HAD EVIDENCE OF YOUR RATING?
A     I HAD SOME MEMBERS OF THE PRESS APPROACH ME--I THINK--THAT TUESDAY AFTER WE GOT BACK, ASKING IF I WANTED TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAD BEEN RELEASED TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE BY THAT TIME. I DO NOT THINK THEY HAD BEEN. WE HAVE OUR NORMAL COMMITTEE MEETING OF FULL JUDICIARIES ON TUESDAY, AND A MEMBER OF THE PRESS HERE DOESN'T KNOW THIS BUT AS I WAS GETTING ON THE ELEVATOR HE CALLED FOR ME, AND I JUST GOT ON THE ELEVATOR AS FAST AS I COULD. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT, BUT YOU GET A SENSE THAT THE PRESS KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON, AND I SIMPLY TRIED TO AVOID THE PRESS. WHEN I CAME HERE TUESDAY, I SAID, "NO COMMENT." I DIDN'T WANT TO COMMENT. QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN EMBARRASSING SITUATION. IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO GO OUT AND COMPLAIN TO THE PRESS OR ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT. YOU JUST SIT, AS WE DID, MY WIFE AND I, THAT WEEKEND, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND WHAT WAS HAPPENING. YOU GO THROUGH A LOT OF INTROSPECTION AND SELF-ANALYSIS, AND I STILL AM AT A LOSS. IT WAS A DIFFICULT WEEKEND, TO SAY THE LEAST.
Q     ON TUESDAY, DID YOU ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS THAT INDICATED TO YOU CLEARLY THAT THEY KNEW WHAT THE RATING WAS?
A     I HAD A MEMBER OF THE TV PRESS COME AND ASK ME IF I WOULD PRESENT AN INTERVIEW WITH REGARD TO THE BAR AND THEIR SCREENING PROCESS. I HAD--I DO NOT REMEMBER--THAT'S ALL I THINK THAT OCCURRED. A MEMBER OF THE TV MEDIA ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE SCREENING AND THE GRADING PROCESS, AND I SAID "NO, NO COMMENT." AND I THINK--AND THEN I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM MS. MARGARET O'SHAY. I THINK SHE WROTE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AND SAID I FAILED OR I REFUSED TO RETURN HER PHONE CALLS, AND THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS THE TRUTH. I REFUSED TO RETURN THOSE PHONE CALLS. I RECEIVED SOME PHONE CALLS, I BELIEVE, FROM GREENVILLE NEWS--SEVERAL PHONE CALLS--AND I REFUSED TO RETURN THE PHONE CALLS THERE AS WELL. I JUST--IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
Q     THE RATINGS FROM THE BAR REGARDING YOU WERE NOT OPENED BY THIS COMMITTEE UNTIL AROUND 10:30 I THINK ON WEDNESDAY MORNING OF LAST WEEK.
A     I THOUGHT IT WAS TUESDAY.
Q     THEY WERE DELIVERED ON TUESDAY, BUT THEY WERE LEFT IN A SEALED ENVELOPE AND WERE NOT OPENED UNTIL WEDNESDAY.
A     WELL, THAT'S THE FIRST I KNEW ABOUT THAT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?

(NO RESPONSE.)

Q     WELL, I'VE GOT ONE OTHER ONE. ON JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE TERM "ROBITIS"?
A     VERY MUCH SO.
Q     WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND MANNERS OF A JUDGE?
A     I THINK TEMPERAMENT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IS AN ABSOLUTE PRIORITY ITEM FOR ANY JUDGE. REGARDLESS OF HIS INTELLECT, REGARDLESS OF HIS WRITING ABILITIES, OR HOW ARTICULATE HE IS, IF HE DOES NOT HAVE THE TEMPERAMENT, THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS RULINGS OR HIS DECISIONS ARE COMPROMISED, AND I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT THE COURTS OF THIS STATE ARE THERE NOT FOR LAWYERS AND NOT FOR JUDGES; THEY ARE FOR THE LITIGANTS, NO ONE ELSE. AND THEY FORM AN OPINION AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT OFFICE DESERVES THAT RESPECT, AS DO THE LAWYERS, BY HOW THAT JUDGE RUNS THAT COURT AND MAKES THOSE DECISIONS. AND IT'S A HEADY ASCENSION TO POWER, AND I THINK IT'S VERY CRUCIAL FOR THE PERSON THAT SITS IN THAT POSITION TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL-HEADEDNESS AND A SENSE OF HUMANITY AS TO WHO HE JUDGES AND WHO ARGUES BEFORE HIM, SO I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT. IF ANYTHING, I THINK THAT JUDGES NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE THE SERVANTS OF THE LAW, NOT THE LORDS OF THE LAW.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WE'RE GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FOR NOW. AS COUNSEL HAS INDICATED, WE WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, AT A LATER TIME.

(WITNESS STANDS ASIDE; 11:59 A.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: COUNSEL, HOW DO YOU WISH TO PROCEED?
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF WITNESSES THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS SUBPOENAED IN THE MATTER OF MR. HUFF. I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED GOING THROUGH THOSE. WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE WITNESS THAT NEEDS A TIME CERTAIN TO TESTIFY AT 12:15. I THINK WE CAN HANDLE THESE IN FAIRLY SHORT ORDER, AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE PRINCIPAL COMPLAINANT. I THINK THAT WILL PROBABLY OCCUPY A LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE REST OF THE DAY. I'D LIKE TO HAVE THESE OTHER FOLKS BE ABLE TO LEAVE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: Y'ALL WANT TO TAKE A SLIGHT BREAK BEFORE WE DO, OR DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED ON?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: WE CAN GO CHECK IN.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: Y'ALL NEED TO CHECK IN?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: YEAH.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: OKAY, AND THEY'RE RINGING OUR BELL. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A 15-MINUTE BREAK--GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE--AND WE'LL BE BACK AT 12:15.
(RECESS FROM 12:00 NOON TO 12:35 P.M., DURING WHICH TIME SEN. MOORE TEMPORARILY DEPARTS AND REP. BEATTY JOINS PROCEEDINGS.)
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WE'LL GO BACK ON THE RECORD NOW AND CALL THE MEETING BACK INTO ORDER. WE TOOK A 15-MINUTE BREAK; WE'RE APPARENTLY ON SENATE TIME.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: I'M LEARNING.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WITH THAT, MR. COUICK, WHO DO YOU WISH TO CALL?
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WISH TO CALL MS. ELIZABETH VAN DOREN GRAY TO TESTIFY.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: MS. GRAY, IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD.
MS. GRAY: MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. TOM POPE IS HERE TO MAKE A STATEMENT--
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL MS. GRAY TO TESTIFY. IF SHE WOULD IDENTIFY HER COUNSEL, I'LL BE GLAD TO HAVE HIM ASSIST HER.
MS. GRAY: MY COUNSEL IS MR. STEPHEN G. MORRISON.

(WITNESS SWORN; 12:38 P.M.)

WHEREUPON, ELIZABETH VAN DOREN GRAY, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, AND BEING REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HER COUNSEL, S.G. MORRISON, ESQUIRE, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, MS. GRAY, JUST LET ME KNOW. IF YOU NEED DOCUMENTS, I'LL BE GLAD SUPPLY THEM.
MR. MORRISON: MR. COUICK AND MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE COULD--
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: HE WISHES TO PROCEED.
MR. MORRISON: ALL RIGHT.
Q     MS. GRAY, DID YOU RECEIVE A SUBPOENA DATED TODAY'S DATE, SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE FOR JUDICIAL SCREENING, RELATING TO THE SCREENING OF MR. HUFF?
A     NO, I DID NOT. THE SUBPOENA WAS DATED MAY 3RD, NOT TODAY.
Q     YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ONE THIS MORNING?
A     I RECEIVED ONE THIS MORNING, BUT IT WAS DATED MAY 3RD, NOT THE 4TH.
Q     AND IT WAS SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     DID IT ASK YOU TO BRING YOURSELF AND ANY DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTS YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION, RELATING TO AN INTERVIEW YOU HAD WITH JUDGE JOSEPH ANDERSON, ASSESSING THE CHARACTER AND COMPETENCE AND DEMEANOR OF THOMAS E. HUFF?
A     GENERALLY, THAT IS CORRECT; IT DID.
Q     DID YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS OR NOTES OR MATERIALS IN YOUR POSSESSION?
MR. MORRISON: EXCUSE ME, BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT. WE RESPECTFULLY OBJECT, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND WOULD LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE BELIEVE THE SUBPOENA IS DEFECTIVE IN SEVERAL RESPECTS, AND WE ALSO WISH TO RESERVE THE RIGHT, IF NECESSARY, TO CHALLENGE THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE SUBPOENA POWER IS ISSUED. WE ARE HERE--MS. GRAY IS HERE VOLUNTARILY, ASSUMING THE SUBPOENA IS VALID, AND PREPARED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS; HOWEVER, SHOULD YOU WISH TO PURSUE BEYOND THIS HEARING, WE RESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENA. THANK YOU.
Q     MS. GRAY, DID YOU MEET OR HAVE A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH JUDGE JOSEPH ANDERSON REGARDING THE CHARACTER, COMPETENCE, AND DEMEANOR OF THOMAS E. HUFF?
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN WITNESS AND HER ATTORNEY, MR. MORRISON.)
A     MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. COUICK, I RESPECTFULLY DECLINE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION ON THE BASIS THAT IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE.
Q     DO YOU HAVE ANY STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ALLOW YOU TO NOT ANSWER A QUESTION UNDER SUBPOENA BY THIS COMMITTEE?
A     I BELIEVE THAT I DO, BUT I'M NOT PREPARED AT THIS MOMENT ON SUCH SHORT NOTICE--THAT I RECEIVED ONLY YESTERDAY THAT I WOULD EVEN BE ASKED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. I ADVISED MR. COUICK YESTERDAY, WHEN I RECEIVED HIS TELEPHONE CALL, THAT I WAS TO BE IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON ARGUING A CASE ON APPEAL. I WAS THERE FROM 2:00 YESTERDAY AFTERNOON UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 7:15 LAST NIGHT, AND I'VE NOT HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO RESEARCH ALL OF THE MATTERS THAT I WOULD PERHAPS WANT TO RAISE AT THIS HEARING. SO I THINK I HAVE THE GROUNDS AND A NUMBER OF BASES TO DECLINE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AT THIS TIME.
Q     MS. GRAY, YOU SAY THAT YOU WILL NOT REVEAL WHETHER YOU MET WITH JUDGE JOSEPH ANDERSON OR NOT. DO I ALSO TAKE IT THAT IT IS YOUR ANSWER THAT YOU WILL NOT PROVIDE THIS COMMITTEE WITH THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS OF JUDGE ANDERSON, IF SUCH A MEETING TOOK PLACE?
A     IT WOULD BE MY POSITION THAT I WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE WITH THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT I CONTACTED IN CONNECTION WITH MY PERFORMANCE AS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE.
Q     MS. GRAY, ARE YOU AWARE THAT JUDGE ANDERSON HAS RELEASED THE BAR FROM ANY OBLIGATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AS IT RELATES TO THIS INFORMATION?
A     I AM AWARE THAT YOU TOLD ME THAT YESTERDAY. I HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING--
MR. COUICK: (TO MS. SATTERWHITE) WOULD YOU PROVIDE MS. GRAY WITH A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON?
MR. MORRISON: EXCUSE ME. I THINK SHE'S ENTITLED TO CONCLUDE HER ANSWER, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
A     WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS, YOU TOLD ME THAT ON THE PHONE YESTERDAY WHEN YOU AND I SPOKE. I HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING FROM ANYONE, IN WRITING OR OTHERWISE; BUT, NONETHELESS, I--
MR. COUICK: (TO MS. SATTERWHITE) SHE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND SHOW HER THE ORIGINAL.

(DOCUMENT IS HANDED TO MS. GRAY.)

Q     I'M SORRY, MS. GRAY.
A     --I WOULD TAKE THE POSITION THAT IT MATTERS NOT THAT ANYONE HAS WAIVED THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANY CONVERSATION WITH ME, BECAUSE I AM PRECLUDED OTHERWISE FROM DISCLOSING CONFIDENTIAL--I MEAN, FROM DISCLOSING THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD OR THE IDENTITY OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH WHOM I SPOKE.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS.
MR. MORRISON: MR. CHAIRMAN--
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: LET ME SEE. BEFORE WE START, WE'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THAT LETTER SO YOU'RE UP TO PAR WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.
MS. GRAY: IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR--I MEAN--"YOUR HONOR"--MR. CHAIRMAN, I NEED MY READING GLASSES.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THAT'S OKAY. I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.
WITNESS: I REGRET THAT MY AGE IS SUCH NOW THAT I CAN'T READ WITHOUT THEM (INDICATING).

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COUICK: I BELIEVE IT'S TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE, MAYBE NEXT TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH.
WITNESS: IF I MIGHT REQUEST A COPY OF THAT.
MR. COUICK: SURE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: (TO MS. SATTERWHITE) WOULD YOU SEE THAT SHE GETS A COPY OF THAT?
MS. SATTERWHITE: (NODS HEAD.)
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD, BEFORE SHE MAKES A COPY OF IT, READ THAT INTO THE RECORD.

(DOCUMENT IS HANDED TO MR. COUICK.)

MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A LETTER DATED MAY 3, 1993, TO THE HONORABLE GLENN F. McCONNELL, ADDRESSED TO THE GRESSETTE BUILDING. IT SAYS, "DEAR SENATOR McCONNELL: MIKE COUICK WAS KIND ENOUGH TO CALL FRIDAY AND SUGGEST THAT I MIGHT EXPECT A SUBPOENA REQUESTING MY TESTIMONY BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE TOMORROW, REGARDING ONE OF THE CANDIDATES FOR A SEAT ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. "AS A FORMER LEGISLATOR AND A FORMER MEMBER OF YOUR COMMITTEE, I HAVE A GREAT RESPECT FOR THE TOUGH DECISIONS YOUR COMMITTEE IS CALLED UPON TO MAKE. NEVERTHELESS, MY INTERPRETATION OF THE APPLICABLE ETHICAL GUIDELINES I AM BOUND TO FOLLOW LEADS ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MY PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE. "THE CODE OF CONDUCT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES, WHICH I AM BOUND TO FOLLOW UNDER MY OATH, DIRECTS THAT JUDGES SHALL NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN PUBLIC POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES, NOR SHOULD THEY LEND THE PRESTIGE OF THEIR OFFICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS SEEKING ELECTIVE OR AN APPOINTED OFFICE. ADVISORY OPINIONS ISSUED UNDER THESE GUIDELINES, HOWEVER, INDICATE IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE FOR A JUDGE TO RESPOND TO CONFIDENTIAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT ATTORNEYS. FOR EXAMPLE, JUDGES RESPOND ON ALMOST A WEEKLY BASIS TO CONFIDENTIAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION BY THE MARTINDALE-HUBBLE RATING SERVICE; HOWEVER PUBLIC TESTIMONY ABOUT A CANDIDATE IN THE CONTEXT OF A HIGHLY-CHARGED POLITICAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE BAR ASSOCIATION WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE UNDER MY INTERPRETATION OF OUR ETHICAL RULES. "WHEN THE BAR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVE CALLED ME, I PROVIDED FACTUAL INFORMATION TO THE REPRESENTATIVE ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SPEAK BY TELEPHONE WITH YOU AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE INDIVIDUALLY AND SHARE THE SAME INFORMATION. ADDITIONALLY, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE BAR REPRESENTATIVE WHO QUESTIONED ME (ELIZABETH DOREN GRAY) TESTIFYING BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE ABOUT MY REMARKS TO HER. ASIDE FROM THIS, HOWEVER, IT IS MY CONSIDERED OPINION THAT I WOULD BE VIOLATING MY OATH AS A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO PUBLICLY TESTIFY BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT I NOT BE SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY. "AGAIN, I FULLY APPRECIATE THE DIFFICULT SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DECISIONS YOUR COMMITTEE IS CALLED UPON TO MAKE, BUT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO THE MATTERS SET FORTH IN THIS LETTER IN REGARD TO MY PUBLIC TESTIMONY. IF I CAN PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO GIVE ME A CALL. WITH KIND PERSONAL REGARDS, I AM VERY TRULY YOURS, JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR." CC'S ARE INDICATED TO ALL JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND TO YOUR COUNSEL.
MR. MORRISON: MR. CHAIRMAN--
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: JUST LET ME JUST GO THROUGH AND GET THE MEMBERS--OR ARE YOU ADDRESSING AN OBJECTION?
MR. MORRISON: YES, SIR. IF I MIGHT JUST MAKE IT CLEAR FOR YOU AND FOR THE COMMITTEE, MS. GRAY'S OBJECTION HERE IS TO REVEALING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SOURCES; THAT IS, IDENTIFYING THE SOURCES. THE BAR ASSOCIATION HAS INFORMED ME THAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO GIVE--PUBLICLY, IF YOU WISH--THE REASONS THAT THE COMMITTEE REACHED ITS CONCLUSION, AND WE HAVE FORMER SENATOR TOM POPE WHO IS HERE READY TO TESTIFY WITH REGARD TO THE REASONS FOR ITS CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO THE CANDIDATE MS. GRAY WAS SUBPOENAED ABOUT. SO IF THE ISSUE IS CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE SOURCES, THEN THAT ISSUE, MS. GRAY WILL DECLINE TO TESTIFY ABOUT. IF THE QUESTION IS WITH REGARD TO THE REASONS THAT THE BAR ASSOCIATION REACHED ITS CONCLUSIONS, THEN MR. POPE IS THOROUGHLY PREPARED TO RESPOND TO THE CHAIR OR TO THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, YOUR COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO ENTER AN OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF THE CANDIDATES TO THAT COURSE OF INFORMATION BEING DELIVERED TO THE COMMITTEE. UNDER SECTION 2-19-30, ALL STATEMENTS MUST BE FURNISHED NO LATER THAN 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE DATE AND TIME SET FOR THE HEARING ON A CANDIDATE. MANY OF THE CANDIDATES' HEARINGS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. IN ADDITION, ALL TESTIMONY, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS FURNISHED TO THE COMMITTEE, SHALL BE SUBMITTED UNDER OATH, AND PERSONS KNOWINGLY FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION, EITHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW FOR PERJURY AND FALSE SWEARING. ALSO CONTAINED WITHIN THE STATUTORY SCHEME IS THE RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE CANDIDATES ARE NOT PRESENT. THE TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR COMMENT. UNDER THE STATUTE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS COMMITTEE HAS THE CAPABILITY, NOR THE AUTHORITY, TO RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION.
MR. MORRISON: WE STAND READY TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION THROUGH MR. POPE IF THE COMMITTEE WANTS IT. OBVIOUSLY, IF THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT DESIRE TO HAVE THE REASONS FOR THE BAR ASSOCIATION'S RATINGS, THAT IS PERFECTLY UP TO THE COMMITTEE. WE DID NOT MEAN TO IMPOSE UPON THE COMMITTEE THE OFFERING OF THOSE REASONS AT ALL. WE SIMPLY OFFER THEM. IF YOU WANT THEM, FINE; IF YOU DON'T, FINE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WELL, WE HAD INDICATED LAST WEEK THAT WE WANTED THEM. PREVIOUS TO THAT, WE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING WITH Y'ALL. WE TRIED TO PROCEED FORWARD ON THE BASIS OF THAT UNDERSTANDING AND ALSO FOR THE CANDIDATES. FOR WHATEVER REASON, Y'ALL CHOSE TO RELEASE THOSE RESULTS. THOSE RESULTS ENDED UP IN THE PRESS EVEN BEFORE--OR THEY HAD THEM EVEN BEFORE, APPARENTLY, THIS COMMITTEE DID. SUBSEQUENTLY, WE TRIED TO GO FORWARD. NOW, WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE DECISION, BASED UPON THE LEGAL ADVISE WE GET, HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM OUR HANDS. Y'ALL HAVE EFFECTIVELY TAKEN THAT FROM OUR HANDS BY THE COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT Y'ALL PREVIOUSLY DECIDED TO TAKE; AND UNDER THE STATUTES OF SOUTH CAROLINA, NOW, WE ARE PLACED IN A POSITION WHERE IT'S NOT IN WRITING, IT'S NOT WITHIN 48 HOURS, EVERYTHING IS TURNED AROUND, AND THE HEARINGS ARE OVER 70 PERCENT OVER. AND, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU COME IN AND AGAIN WANT TO CHANGE COURSE. PROBABLY WHAT THE BAR NEEDS TO DO IS TO SIT DOWN AND THINK BACK THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND HOPEFULLY GET WITH US DURING THE SUMMER AND SEE IF WE CAN'T FIND A WAY TO SERVE BOTH ENDS. BUT THE PROBLEM YOU'VE PUT US IN NOW IS THAT WE HAVE THE STATUTE BEFORE US, AND WE HAVE TO UPHOLD THE LAW; AND THE LAW IS, YOU NOW HAVE US IN THE SITUATION WHERE YOU COME IN AFTER THE DEADLINES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, MY RULING WOULD HAVE TO BE TO FOLLOW THE COUNSEL ON THAT, AT THIS POINT. I'M NOT ABOUT TO GO AGAINST LEGAL ADVICE.
MR. MORRISON: MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH REGARD TO THE COURSE OF CONDUCT, AS YOUR HONOR--MR. CHAIRMAN, AS YOU KNOW, THE BAR ASSOCIATION HAD OFFERED TO PROVIDE THE REASONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WE FELT WOULD PROTECT THE CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUE SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD FEEL FREE TO COME BEFORE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, BEFORE THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE, AND IT WOULD GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO QUESTION ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IF NECESSARY. THAT DID NOT WORK OUT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT, AND I DON'T WANT TO LAY ANY BLAME FOR THAT. WE HAVE NOW RECONSIDERED THAT POSITION WITH REGARD TO EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND, BASICALLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE, RECONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT SUCH REASONS SHOULD BE GIVEN PUBLICLY. WE ARE NOW PREPARED TO GIVE THOSE REASONS. IF, FOR LEGAL REASONS OR OTHER REASONS, THE COMMITTEE IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THAT OR DOES NOT WISH TO HAVE THOSE REASONS STATED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR WAS EXPRESSLY DESIGNED FOR FAIRNESS TO THE CANDIDATES, TO INVOLVE THE CANDIDATES. THE CANDIDATES WERE EACH CONFRONTED WITH AND HAD DISCUSSED WITH THEM THE SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES. AND WE HAVE, IN A GENERAL SENSE, YOUR HONOR--
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN--
MR. MORRISON: --CAREFULLY--
MR. COUICK: --I THINK WE'RE GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PURPOSE OF HAVING MS. GRAY HERE. WE'RE GETTING INTO A BANNER ABOUT THE PROPRIETY OF THE BAR PROCESS. WE ARE ON THE RECORD. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RELEVANT TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US. I THINK MAYBE IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE, MAYBE OUTSIDE WOULD BE THE BEST PLACE TO HAVE IT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: LET ME JUST TELL YOU, MR. MORRISON, THAT THE PROBLEM WE ARE IN IS THAT THIS COMMITTEE NEVER WANTED THE BEHIND-CLOSED-DOORS REASONING. WE NEVER--WE WANTED THE REASONS AND WE WANTED EVERYTHING OUT FRONT FROM THE START. WE NEVER AGREED WITH THE PATH THAT Y'ALL TOOK. BUT IN AN EFFORT TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE YOUR ALL'S TIED-IN POSITION BECAUSE OF YOUR RULES, WE CAME UP WITH A MIDDLE COURSE WHICH INCLUDED GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. Y'ALL CHOSE TO CHANGE THOSE RULES, TO RELEASE IT, TO THEN CHANGE THE COURSE. LAST WEEK WE TRIED TO GET Y'ALL TO EXPLAIN IT IN PUBLIC; Y'ALL DECLINED TO DO SO. WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE CANDIDATES; WE NOW HAVE THE STATUTE IN PLACE. AND THE BAR ASSOCIATION IS REALLY LIKE ANY OTHER WITNESS THAT COMES BEFORE HERE, AND THE STATUTES WOULD APPLY TO Y'ALL THE SAME AS THEY WILL APPLY TO ANYBODY ELSE. I CANNOT--I AM ADVISED I CANNOT LIFT Y'ALL INTO SPECIAL STATUS UNDER THE LAW. AND, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING I CAN SUGGEST TO YOU IS TO GET THE RUDDER IN THE WATER, SO TO SPEAK, AND GET A CLEAR COURSE SET OUT, AND HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE SOME WAY THAT THIS THING WILL WORK OUT. YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT WE HAD A SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENT, BUT EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED AS THEY HAVE OCCURRED, AND WE ARE HERE AT THIS JUNCTURE AND WE'RE CALLING WITNESSES NOW ON REALLY THE FINAL CANDIDATE. AND WE HAVE SOME MORE, I THINK--WHAT IS IT?--STRENGTHENING WITNESSES FOR TOMORROW, FOR SOME OF THE OTHERS, AND THAT'S IT. SO, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING, AND THE WITNESS, BUT IF THE WITNESS--LET ME SEE IF--DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL WISH TO ASK THE WITNESS? BECAUSE, IF NOT, I'M GOING TO DISMISS HER AND MOVE ON. THAT'S ALL I CAN DO.
MR. MORRISON: THANK YOU.
MR. HODGES: I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YES, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     ARE YOU SAYING, MS. GRAY, THAT, JUDGE ANDERSON'S RELEASE NOTWITHSTANDING, THAT IT'S THE BAR'S POSITION AND YOUR POSITION THAT YOU SHOULD NOT TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HE TOLD YOU?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ANY QUESTION THAT ANY OF THESE MEMBERS WOULD ASK YOU TODAY ABOUT WHAT HE TOLD YOU, YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE THAT SAME OBJECTION?
MR. MORRISON: WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY DECLINE.
WITNESS: I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DECLINE.
MR. MORRISON: HOWEVER, WE DO STAND READY TO GIVE THE REASONS THAT THIS CANDIDATE WAS RATED.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
MR. MORRISON: NO, PUBLICLY.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: PUBLICLY?
MR. MORRISON: MR. POPE IS HERE, READY TO--
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD OBJECT TO ANY MORE INQUIRY ON THIS. I OBJECT ON THE BASIS OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT HERE TODAY. MR. MORRISON HAS NO OTHER STATUS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, OTHER THAN LEGAL COUNSEL FOR MS. GRAY ON THE ISSUE OF THE SUBPOENA. WE'VE LISTENED TO HIS SPEECH ON HOW THE BAR'S READY TO RESPOND, BUT ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES ARE GONE; WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING THE LAST CANDIDATE; THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE TO EVEN QUESTION THE BAR TODAY. AND I THINK THAT ONCE THIS PROCESS IS AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR, IT'S AWFULLY EASY TO SAY YOU WERE ABLE TO SHOW UP AND TESTIFY, BUT THAT PRETTY MUCH PREJUDICES EVERYONE ELSE.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR CALLING THE WITNESS WAS TO RELAY JUDGE ANDERSON'S COMMENTS, AND IF THAT--YOU KNOW, IF SHE'S NOT IN A POSITION TO DO, I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO QUESTION HER FURTHER. I THINK WE OUGHT TO MOVE ON.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: I'LL EXCUSE THE WITNESS. THANK YOU.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.
MR. MORRISON: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH REGARD TO MR. HUFF, THAT IS ALL WE CAME PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. WE DIDN'T MEAN TO GET INTO ANY OTHER CANDIDATES. THANK YOU.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 12:50 P.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: MR. COUICK, DO YOU WANT TO CALL THE NEXT WITNESS?
MR. COUICK: I WANT TO CALL MR. FRAMPTON TOOLE, III.

(WITNESS SWORN; 12:51 P.M.)

WHEREUPON, FRAMPTON W. TOOLE, III, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: PLEASE ANSWER MR. COUICK'S QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     IF THE ROAR OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE GETS TOO LOUD, LET ME KNOW.
A     I'LL DO THAT, SIR.
Q     MR. TOOLE, ARE YOU A RESIDENT OF THE AIKEN COMMUNITY?
A     YES, SIR, I AM.
Q     COULD YOU TELL ME WHERE YOU LIVE?
A     I LIVE AT 158 NORTHWOOD DRIVE SOUTHWEST, AIKEN, SOUTH CAROLINA 29803.
Q     WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
A     I'M A PRACTICING ATTORNEY IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW?
A     APPROXIMATELY 121/2 YEARS.
Q     WHERE DID YOU ATTEND LAW SCHOOL?
A     I ATTENDED LAW SCHOOL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q     AND YOU GRADUATED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AS WELL?
A     YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     IN YOUR PRACTICE OF LAW, WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR MAJOR AREAS OF CONCENTRATION?
A     IT IS A GENERAL PRACTICE, BUT THE MAJOR AREAS OF MY CONCENTRATION HAVE BEEN BANKING LAW, FORECLOSURE LAW, REAL ESTATE RELATED MATTERS, PROBATE, FAMILY COURT MATTERS. IT'S BASICALLY A GENERAL CIVIL PRACTICE, IS WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO.
Q     HOW OFTEN ARE YOU IN COURT IN AIKEN COUNTY?
A     I AM IN COURT APPROXIMATELY, PROBABLY, ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK, I WOULD SAY.
Q     AND YOU SAY "COURT," IS THAT CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS, OR FAMILY COURT?
A     IT WOULD INVOLVE CIRCUIT COURT, FAMILY COURT, PROBATE COURT, AS WELL AS HEARINGS BEFORE THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY FOR AIKEN COUNTY.
Q     WHILE YOU HAVE BEEN IN COURT, HAVE YOU EVER HAD OCCASION TO SEE CANDIDATE HUFF IN THE SAME COURTROOM THAT YOU WERE IN?
A     YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q     AND ON SUCH OCCASIONS HAVE YOU EVER HAPPENED TO SEE THE CANDIDATE PRACTICING LAW, IN THE SENSE OF ARGUING MOTIONS OR IN THE MIDST OF A TRIAL.
A     YES, SIR. DURING MY 121/2 YEARS OF PRACTICE, TOM HUFF AND I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CASES TOGETHER, ALWAYS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDES. IN PARTICULAR, WE'VE HAD FAMILY COURT CASES TOGETHER. WE HAVE HAD CIVIL CASES TOGETHER. IN FACT, WE HAVE A CIVIL CASE RIGHT NOW THAT'S DUE TO BE TRIED NEXT MONDAY. AND WE'VE ALSO HAD D.S.S.-APPOINTED CASES WHERE WE HAVE REPRESENTED DIFFERENT PARTIES BUT BEEN INVOLVED IN THE SAME PROCEEDING.
Q     HAVE YOU EVER REPRESENTED A CLIENT WITH MR. HUFF?
A     I HAVE NOT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
Q     DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMON FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH MR. HUFF?
A     NONE WHATSOEVER.
Q     DO YOU OWN ANY PROPERTY IN CONJUNCTION WITH MR. HUFF?
A     NONE.
Q     MR. TOOLE, IN YOUR OCCASION TO PRACTICE LAW AGAINST MR. HUFF IN THE SAME COURTROOM, AS YOU SAY, WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR IMPRESSION OF HIS LEGAL ABILITY?
A     THEY HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDING. TOM HAS ALWAYS HAD A FIRM GRASP OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CASES THAT HE AND I HAVE HAD TOGETHER. HE IS ALWAYS RESEARCHED AND FULLY PREPARED, KNOWS THE LAW AS TO THOSE ISSUES, AND I CAN SAY WITHOUT HESITATION THAT HE'S ALWAYS VERY EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED HIS CLIENTS IN THE CASES THAT HE AND I HAVE HAD AGAINST EACH OTHER, OVER THE YEARS.
Q     IN TERMS OF HIS COURTROOM DEMEANOR, GIVE THE COMMITTEE AN UNDERSTANDING OR AN IMPRESSION OF WHAT YOU SEE IN MR. HUFF. HOW DOES HE HANDLE THE CASE AND--
A     TOM IS WHAT--YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY, AS FAR AS--IF I HAD TO HAVE ANOTHER LAWYER, YOU KNOW, OPPOSING ME, IT WOULD BE TOM. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS THAT TOM IS--HE'S ALWAYS PREPARED, WHICH ALWAYS HELPS. SOMETIMES YOU END UP WITH CASES AGAINST OTHER LAWYERS WHO ARE NOT PREPARED AND IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MOVE THE CASE ALONG. BUT BESIDES THAT, TOM WILL ALWAYS LISTEN. HE CAN ALWAYS SEE BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE. IF HE THINKS HE'S WEAK ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE IN A CASE, HE WILL CONCEDE IT OR WILL TRY TO WORK FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF HIS CLIENTS INSOFAR AS THAT ISSUE IS CONCERNED. HE'S ALWAYS STRAIGHTFORWARD, TOTALLY HONEST, AND HE IS EVEN-TEMPERED. I WOULD SAY, IF I HAD TO CHARACTERIZE TOM WITH ONE WORD, BESIDES HIS LEGAL ABILITIES, IT WOULD BE JUST EVEN-TEMPERED. JUST TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE AN EXAMPLE, WE WERE INVOLVED IN A D.S.S. CASE I GUESS ABOUT SEVEN, EIGHT WEEKS AGO, AND HE WAS REPRESENTING, I BELIEVE, ONE OF THE TWO PARENTS. THEY HAD REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY, AND HE HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. AND AN AGREEMENT HAD BEEN WORKED OUT AMONG ALL THE PARTIES, INSOFAR AS THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE WAS CONCERNED. AND WE WENT TO THE HEARING AND THE D.S.S. ATTORNEY HAD THE PROPOSED ORDER, AND THE ORDER WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE AGREEMENT WAS--AND, ESSENTIALLY, IN MY OPINION, THE D.S.S. ATTORNEY WAS TRYING TO JERK TOM'S CHAIN--AND HE VERY POLITELY, BUT FIRMLY, REMINDED HER OF THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD; DIDN'T BLOW UP OR DO ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SEEN OTHER ATTORNEYS DO; HANDLED HIMSELF VERY WELL, VERY PROFESSIONALLY. AND THAT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WITH TOM THROUGHOUT MY, YOU KNOW, CASES WITH HIM, IS THAT HE ALWAYS ACTS IN THAT MANNER.
Q     MR. TOOLE, HAVING A GENERAL PRACTICE IN THE COMMUNITY OF AIKEN HAS GIVEN YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, I WOULD IMAGINE, TO LOOK AT OTHER ATTORNEYS, AND ALSO TO LOOK AT THE PRACTICE OF LAW GENERALLY IN AIKEN, AND PERHAPS AS COMPARED TO OTHER LOCALES IN SOUTH CAROLINA WHERE YOU WOULD PRACTICE. FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU THINK THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN AIKEN IS ANY LESS SOPHISTICATED THAN IT WOULD BE ANYWHERE ELSE IN SOUTH CAROLINA?
A     NONE WHATSOEVER. I HAD OCCASION TO WORK WITH ATTORNEYS AROUND OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE, WHERE I HAVE ASSOCIATED THEM BECAUSE OF LOGISTICAL CONCERNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND CERTAINLY THE PRACTICE OF LAW, IN MY OPINION, IS UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND NO LESS SOPHISTICATED IN, SAY, A PLACE LIKE AIKEN OR BAMBERG COUNTIES, AS, SAY, RICHLAND OR, YOU KNOW, SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, WHICH ARE MUCH BIGGER. OTHER ATTORNEYS IN AIKEN THAT YOU HAVE HAD OCCASION TO COMPARE WITH THE CAPABILITY OF MR. HUFF, HOW WOULD YOU RANK MR. HUFF VIS-A-VIS THESE OTHER ATTORNEYS IN AIKEN?
A     HE'S AT THE TOP. AND LET ME JUST SAY THIS: IF I, MYSELF, WERE PERSONALLY IN NEED OF LEGAL COUNSEL, TOM HUFF WOULD BE ON MY SHORT LIST. AND I CAN HONESTLY TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE NOT A WHOLE LOT OF ATTORNEYS THAT I WOULD SAY THAT ABOUT. YOU KNOW, HAVING PRACTICED FOR 121/2 YEARS, YOU COME TO KNOW PEOPLE OVER TIME--NOT ONLY IN THE COURTROOM, BUT FROM TALKING WITH THEM; YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SEE THEM AT THE COURTHOUSE, IN THE R&C OFFICE AND THE OTHER RECORDS OFFICES IN THE COUNTY, YOU COME TO KNOW AN INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR ABILITIES. AND TOM HUFF, IN MY OPINION, QUITE CANDIDLY AND TOTALLY HONESTLY, RANKS RIGHT UP THERE, IN MY OPINION, AS ONE OF THE BEST WE HAVE IN AIKEN COUNTY.
Q     DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SPEAK TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION ABOUT MR. HUFF'S QUALIFICATIONS?
A     I DID NOT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     WHAT IS HIS REPUTATION IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY?
A     IN MY OPINION, IT'S EXCELLENT.
Q     DO YOU THINK THAT FEELING IS SHARED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE BAR OF THAT AREA, THAT CIRCUIT?
A     IN THAT CIRCUIT, YES, SIR, I WOULD SAY SO. AND LET ME JUST--AS COMMENTED BY MIKE, I WAS TOTALLY SURPRISED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE BAR COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, QUITE HONESTLY, I DON'T SEE HOW A COMMITTEE THAT MEETS MAYBE ONCE WITH THE CANDIDATE AND TALKS TO A FEW REFERENCES OR OTHER PEOPLE CAN GET THE FULL MEASURE OF AN ATTORNEY. YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH THAT PERSON, HAVE CASES WITH HIM, DEAL WITH HIM ON A DAILY BASIS TO REALLY GET TO KNOW THAT PERSON'S ABILITIES, AND WHAT TYPE OF LAWYER THEY ARE. AND I'VE HAD THAT ABILITY TO DO THAT INSOFAR AS TOM HUFF IS CONCERNED, AND CERTAINLY FIND HIM TO BE, YOU KNOW, AN EMINENTLY QUALIFIED ATTORNEY. AND, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD BE A CREDIT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND I, YOU KNOW, WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE HIM QUALIFIED SO THAT HE COULD SEEK THAT POSITION, AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY AND AS A PERSON THAT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE JUDICIARY.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:

Q     JUST ONE. DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE IN THE AIKEN BAR OR THAT CIRCUIT THAT THESE PEOPLE SPOKE WITH IN INVESTIGATING MR. HUFF?
A     NO, SIR, I DO NOT. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER OF WHAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR DID OR DID NOT DO, INSOFAR AS MR. HUFF IS CONCERNED.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE:

Q     HAVE YOU HAD CONVERSATION WITH OTHER ATTORNEYS OR OTHER JUDGES THAT MAYBE MR. HUFF'S NAME HAD COME UP, THAT WERE LESS THAN FAVORABLE COMMENTS OR SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE GIVEN YOU SOME CAUSE FOR CONCERN SINCE YOU HAVE SUCH A HIGH OPINION OF MR. HUFF?
A     I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT I HAVE NOT, AND IF I HAD I CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE IT KNOWN TO THIS COMMITTEE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOTHING BUT THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR MR. HUFF, HIS LEGAL ABILITIES, AND IF I DIDN'T--IF I KNEW OF ANYTHING, INSOFAR AS, YOU KNOW, ANY CASES THAT I HAD WITH HIM, NEGATIVE OR DEROGATORY, I CERTAINLY WOULD TELL THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT THAT, BUT I REALLY DO NOT. AND I HOPE I DON'T SOUND LIKE I'M JUST A PRAISE-TOM-HUFF TYPE OF PERSON, BUT IT'S JUST THE WAY--YOU KNOW, FACTUALLY, THAT'S THE SITUATION, IN MY OPINION--HE IS, OR HIS STATUS INSOFAR AS OUR LEGAL COMMUNITY IS CONCERNED.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YES, SIR, REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     YOU MAY HAVE REMARKED ON THIS QUESTION, BUT HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR PRACTICE? IS IT PLAINTIFF-ORIENTED OR DEFENSE-ORIENTED, OR IS IT A GENERAL PRACTICE?
A     IT'S A GENERAL PRACTICE. WE DO BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENSE WORK. THE MAJORITY OF IT IS PLAINTIFFS' WORK--A LOT OF BANK WORK, FORECLOSURE WORK; AND GENERAL CIVIL LITIGATION--BUT IT'S PROBABLY MORE PLAINTIFF-ORIENTED THAN IT WOULD BE DEFENSE-ORIENTED, I WOULD SAY.
Q     ARE YOU VERY ACTIVE IN ANY OF THE BAR ORGANIZATIONS OR BAR FUNCTIONS THAT THEY HAVE?
A     I WAS A MEMBER OF THE YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION--THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE--BEFORE I AGED OUT, AND SERVED ON THAT FOR TWO TERMS, I BELIEVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. BEYOND THAT, I HAVE NOT SERVED ON ANY OTHER BAR COMMITTEES.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? SENATOR.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR SALEEBY:

Q     WHO DO YOU PRACTICE WITH NOW?
A     IT'S A FAMILY FIRM. WE'VE BEEN IN AIKEN SINCE 1899, AND MY GREAT-GRANDFATHER STARTED THE FIRM. BUT RIGHT NOW, MY FATHER, WHO IS FRAMPTON W. TOOLE, JR.--WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE AND THIS SENATE IN THE PAST--AND MY UNCLE, G.L. TOOLE, III, IS STILL ACTIVE IN PRACTICE; AND WE HAVE ONE NON-FAMILY MEMBER, AN ATTORNEY BY THE NAME OF RICHARD PEARCE, WHO IS WITH US. SO WE HAVE FOUR ATTORNEYS.
Q     I DIDN'T KNOW YOUR GREAT-GRANDFATHER, BUT I KNEW YOUR GRANDFATHER AND YOUR FATHER.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     I'M NOT QUITE THAT OLD.
A     YES, SIR.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 1:06 P.M.)

MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES TO CALL THIS AFTERNOON. WOULD IT BE THE COMMITTEE'S PLEASURE TO FINISH THE COUPLE OF WITNESSES LEFT ON MR. HUFF, OTHER THAN--OR PERHAPS ADJOURN FOR A LUNCHEON BREAK NOW? WE HAVE THREE OTHER WITNESSES, PLUS THE COMPLAINANT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: MR. COUICK, WE'LL TRY TO GO AT LEAST ANOTHER 30 MINUTES, I UNDERSTAND, AND THEN SOME CONFLICTS--
MR. COUICK: ALL RIGHT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO CALL MR. RONNIE MAXWELL. HE'S A PRACTICING ATTORNEY IN AIKEN.

(WITNESS SWORN; 1:07 P.M.)

WHEREUPON, RONNIE MAXWELL, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF MR. COUICK.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. MAXWELL, YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF AIKEN COUNTY?
A     I AM.
Q     AND YOU ARE A PRACTICING ATTORNEY THERE, I BELIEVE?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN PRACTICE?
A     I HAVE BEEN IN PRACTICE SINCE 1976. I ACTUALLY CLERKED TWO YEARS WITH JUDGE SIMONS AND STARTED PRIVATE PRACTICE IN 1978.
Q     WHAT IS YOUR AREA OF PRACTICE?
A     I PRACTICE ABOUT 99.9 PERCENT IN CIVIL LITIGATION, MAINLY PLAINTIFFS' WORK, BOTH TORT, PRODUCTS LIABILITIES, AS WELL AS WORKERS' COMPENSATION.
Q     WOULD THAT PRACTICE BE MAINLY IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT?
A     I DO MORE IN STATE COURT, BUT DO AN ACTIVE FEDERAL PRACTICE. I'VE BEEN DOING AN ACTIVE STATE PRACTICE IN AIKEN, AND A GOOD BIT OF THE REST OF THE STATE.
Q     DO YOU BELIEVE YOURSELF TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE STANDARD OF EXPERTISE AMONG ATTORNEYS IN AIKEN COUNTY?
A     I WOULD, IN MY LIMITED AREA OF PRACTICE. YOU MENTIONED THE PHRASE "A MILE WIDE"; I'M PROBABLY AN INCH WIDE AND HOPEFULLY SOMEWHAT DEEPER. BUT IN CIVIL LITIGATION, I THINK I HAVE A GOOD FEELING FOR IT.
Q     WELL, FOR THAT INCH-WIDE AREA, DO YOU BELIEVE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE STANDARD?
A     YES, SIR, I BELIEVE SO.
Q     MR. MAXWELL, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO BE IN THE SAME COURTROOM WITH MR. HUFF, EITHER AS CO-COUNSEL OR OPPOSING COUNSEL?
A     TOMMY AND I HAVE TALKED OFTEN AND BEEN ASSOCIATED ON SOME CASES. NONE OF THOSE CASES HAVE GONE TO TRIAL. I HAVE BEEN IN THE COURTROOM WITH HIM, AS MR. TOOLE MENTIONED, IN A D.S.S. HEARING. I DO NOT PRACTICE IN FAMILY COURT, OTHER THAN WHEN MADE TO DO SO IN D.S.S. HEARINGS. BUT IN AT LEAST ONE D.S.S. HEARING, I WAS IN THE SAME COURTROOM, BUT I'VE TALKED WITH HIM OFTEN ABOUT LEGAL MATTERS.
Q     SO I WOULD TAKE IT THAT THE SCOPE OF TESTIMONY YOU WOULD LIKE TO OFFER TODAY, IN TERMS OF GIVING A JUDGMENT ON HIS QUALIFICATIONS, WOULD NOT BE IN TERMS OF HIS TRIAL EXPERIENCE, BUT IN HIS GENERAL CAPABILITIES AS AN ATTORNEY?
A     THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE ACTIVE IN THE TRIAL LAWYERS AND ACTIVE IN THE LATE EIGHTIES IN LOBBYING IN THIS BUILDING AGAINST CERTAIN TORT REFORM EFFORTS, AND ANY COMMENTS I MIGHT MAKE WOULD BE GEARED TOWARD TOMMY'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW WITHIN THE AREA OF PERSONAL INJURY LAW.
Q     MR. MAXWELL, REALIZING THAT IS THE SCOPE OF COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT YOUR IMPRESSION OF MR. HUFF'S CAPABILITIES AND ABILITIES IN THAT AREA.
A     WITHIN THAT AREA OF THE LAW, I THINK TOMMY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN EXPERT. BACK WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE COMPARATIVE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ARGUMENTS, THE VARIOUS EFFORTS TO CHANGE THE LAW IN REGARDS TO PERSONAL INJURY LAW--PARTICULARLY, AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE LAW--TOMMY, AT LEAST FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THOSE LOBBYING THE LEGISLATURE, WAS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE ONES MOST AWARE OF THE LAW IN THAT AREA, MOST INTERESTED, CHAIRED THE COMMITTEE THAT ACTUALLY HANDLED THAT ISSUE. WE FOUND HIM TO BE KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THAT AREA OF THE LAW. I PARTICULARLY HAVE TALKED WITH HIM OFTEN ABOUT VERY COMPLICATED ISSUES THAT CHANGE OFTEN IN REGARDS TO STACKING, UNINSURED LAW, UNDERINSURED LAW, AND VARIOUS INSURANCE MATTERS THAT HAVE CHANGED TREMENDOUSLY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. HE'S LOOKED AT AS AN EXPERT IN THAT FIELD, AND HE AND I HAVE SHARED OFTEN ON THOSE TYPE ISSUES.
Q     HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO DISCUSS MR. HUFF'S CAPABILITIES WITH OTHER LAWYERS OR JUDGES?
A     TO SOME LIMITED EXTENT. I'VE REALLY LIMITED MYSELF TO THE TYPE WORK I DO NOW FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS. I WAS--FOR PART OF THAT TIME--I PRACTICE BY MYSELF, BUT FOR PART OF THAT TIME, I WAS IN A LAW FIRM WITH OTHER LAWYERS THAT MIGHT HAVE PRACTICED IN THE FAMILY COURT WITH TOMMY. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FACT THAT TOMMY IS AWFULLY BUSY, AND AS ANYONE WHO HAS A FULL-TIME PRACTICE OF LAW AND A FAMILY AND LEGISLATIVE DUTIES--I KNOW TOMMY, AS MOST LAWYERS WHO ARE BUSY, IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO CONTACT. BUT BESIDES THAT, I'VE HEARD NO NEGATIVES ABOUT HIS JUDICIAL--ABOUT HIS LEGAL ABILITIES IN THE AIKEN COMMUNITY.
Q     DO YOU HAVE ANY SHARED FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH MR. HUFF, WHETHER IT BE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY, ANY CASES PENDING THAT YOU SHARE AN INTEREST IN?
A     TOMMY AND I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE IN A GOOD LITTLE WHILE. HE HAS SENT ME A FILE RECENTLY AND ASKED WOULD I HAVE ANY INTEREST AND IF I THOUGHT THERE WAS ANY MERIT IN A PERSONAL INJURY FILE THAT HAPPENED--AN ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY. I HAVE NOT AGREED TO TAKE THAT CASE, NOR HAVE I EVEN INTERVIEWED THOSE CLIENTS; BUT BESIDES THAT ONE FILE I NOW HAVE IN MY OFFICE, I HAVE NO OTHER INTERESTS AT ALL FINANCIALLY WITH TOMMY.
Q     IN ASSESSING MR. HUFF'S CAPABILITIES--AND WE'VE LIMITED THAT NOT TO TRIAL EXPERIENCE, BUT JUST AS GENERAL KNOWLEDGE IN ONE SPECIFIC AREA--WOULD IT BE YOUR IMPRESSION THAT OTHER ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES IN THE AIKEN AREA WOULD HAVE SIMILARLY POSITIVE COMMENTS ABOUT MR. HUFF?
A     I THINK SO. IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE MY IMPRESSION THAT THEY WOULD.
Q     WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION?
A     I WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR.
Q     CAN YOU TELL THE COMMITTEE WHO YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY?
A     WADE LOGAN FROM CHARLESTON.
Q     DID ANYONE ELSE INTERVIEW YOU FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION?
A     NO. I TALKED WITH MR. LOGAN ON ONE OCCASION, SOMEWHAT BRIEF. MANY OF THE AREAS OF LAW THAT TOMMY PRACTICES IN, I DO NOT, AND IT WAS A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH MR. LOGAN, AND I'VE TALKED WITH NO ONE ELSE ABOUT IT. AND I WAS SURPRISED AT THE RATING AFTER I HAD TALKED WITH MR. LOGAN, BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY TALKED TO OTHERS OTHER THAN ME TO COME UP WITH THEIR RATING.
Q     MR. MAXWELL, WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD MR. LOGAN THAT MR. HUFF HAD A VERY LIMITED CIVIL PRACTICE IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT?
A     I DON'T REMEMBER SAYING THAT. TOMMY DOES SOME CIVIL WORK. HE PROBABLY DOES MORE FAMILY COURT WORK, AND HE DOES SOME CRIMINAL WORK I'M AWARE OF. HE HAS MORE OF A GENERAL PRACTICE. I WOULD SAY HE'S NOT ONE OF THE--DOESN'T HAVE THE BIGGEST NUMBER OF CASES OF ANY CIVIL LAWYER, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER MAKING THAT PARTICULAR COMMENT.
Q     DID YOU SAY THAT MR. HUFF HAD A VERY LIMITED CRIMINAL PRACTICE IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT? ARE THESE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TOLD MR. LOGAN--NOT YOUR IMPRESSIONS, BUT THINGS YOU WOULD HAVE TOLD MR. LOGAN: THAT HE HAS A VERY LIMITED CRIMINAL PRACTICE IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT?
A     I'M NOT SURE THE--I WOULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY CRIMINAL CASES TOMMY HANDLES. FROM HIS TESTIMONY THIS MORNING, I QUITE FRANKLY THOUGHT HE HANDLED MORE THAN HE MIGHT.
Q     WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD MR. LOGAN THAT HE HAD HANDLED A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF APPEALS?
A     I WOULD NOT HAVE.
Q     WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD MR. LOGAN NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT HIS LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP, LEGAL SKILLS, AND LEGAL KNOWLEDGE?
A     NO, SIR, NOT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE COULD ANYTHING I'VE SAID BEEN CONSIDERED NEGATIVE TOWARDS TOMMY.
Q     WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD MR. LOGAN THAT HE HAD A LACK OF BROAD LEGAL EXPERIENCE?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     MR. MAXWELL, DO YOU THINK IT'S AN ABSOLUTE CRITERIA FOR A JUDGE ON THE APPELLATE COURT TO HAVE EXPERIENCE--PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE?
A     I DO NOT.
Q     CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO THE COMMITTEE?
A     WELL, AS YOU POINTED OUT EARLIER, I BELIEVE CURRENTLY FOUR OF THE SIX SITTING MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS NOW DO NOT HAVE PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. I THINK AS TOMMY INDICATED--I THINK HE SAID IT WELL--IT CERTAINLY CAN BE AN ASSET, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AN ESSENTIAL. OBVIOUSLY, OF THE FIVE FOLKS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEFORE THIS BODY, THERE'S CERTAINLY OTHERS BESIDES HIM WHO DO NOT HAVE PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, YET THEY WERE RATED AS QUALIFIED. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. I THINK TO SOME EXTENT IT COULD BE HELPFUL. THEN AGAIN, IF YOU'RE A PRACTICING FAMILY COURT JUDGE DOING ABSOLUTELY NO CRIMINAL OR CIVIL WORK, I THINK IT WOULD ALMOST BE A NEGATIVE TO LIMIT YOURSELF TO A PARTICULAR AREA OF THE LAW FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
Q     MR. MAXWELL, I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AT ONE POINT?
A     RIGHT.
Q     ARE YOU STILL A MEMBER?
A     I AM.
Q     ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HOW MANY MEMBERS THAT ORGANIZATION HAS?
A     WE HAVE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1,000 AND 1,100-1,200 MEMBERS, SOMEWHERE IN THAT BALLPARK.
Q     THAT MAINLY REPRESENTS WHAT WOULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS A PLAINTIFFS' BAR. IS THAT CORRECT?
A     PROBABLY, IT COULD GENERALLY BE CHARACTERIZED AS THAT. WE REPRESENT A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DO A GOOD BIT OF CRIMINAL WORK AND FAMILY COURT WORK--AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO DO A LOT OF THAT ARE CRITICAL OF US THAT WE DON'T GET THAT POINT ACROSS--BUT WE'RE PROBABLY GENERALLY TAGGED AS BEING PLAINTIFFS' LAWYERS.
Q     WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE ACTIVE TRIAL PRACTITIONERS IN THE PLAINTIFFS' AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE AREA, DO YOU THINK BELONG TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRIAL LAWYERS?
A     I WOULD SAY CERTAINLY A MAJORITY, AND PROBABLY A PRETTY STRONG MAJORITY, OF THOSE WHO PRACTICE CRIMINAL LAW; AND I'D SAY, ON FAMILY COURT LAW, THOSE THAT I KNOW.
Q     THERE'S ALSO AN ORGANIZATION, I BELIEVE, THAT'S CALLED SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL--EXCUSE ME, DEFENSE TRIAL LAWYERS?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THEIR MEMBERSHIP IS IN GENERAL?
A     THEY ARE GENERALLY MADE UP OF LAWYERS, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, WHO PRACTICE LAW REPRESENTING CORPORATIONS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT WOULD BE DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL CASES--IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
Q     HOW MANY MEMBERS WOULD THAT ORGANIZATION HAVE?
A     MR. COUICK, I'M NOT SURE. I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THEY WERE SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER THAN OUR ORGANIZATION.
Q     SO SOMETHING LESS THAN 1,000?
A     I THINK SUBSTANTIALLY LESS, IS MY IMPRESSION.
Q     SO BETWEEN THOSE TWO ORGANIZATIONS WHICH WOULD REPRESENT THE GREATER MAJORITY OF ALL TRIAL LAWYERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, I WOULD TAKE IT, THERE ARE PROBABLY LESS THAN 2,000 OR 3,000 MEMBERS; RIGHT?
A     PROBABLY CORRECT. I'D SAY 1,500 TO 2,000.
Q     OTHER ATTORNEYS IN SOUTH CAROLINA THAT BELONG TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, WHICH IS A COMPULSORY-MEMBERSHIP BAR, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HOW MANY MEMBERS THERE ARE IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION?
A     LAST I HEARD, I BELIEVE IT WAS 7,000.
Q     SO IF YOU HAVE A 7,000-MEMBER BAR--WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY EVERY MEMBER WHICH BELONGS TO THE BAR--BUT, BY YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, ONLY APPROXIMATELY 3,000 OR LESS OF THOSE FOLKS ARE ACTIVE TRAIL ATTORNEYS, DON'T YOU LEAVE A WHOLE LOT OF FOLKS OUT IF YOU INSIST ON A GREAT DEAL OF TRIAL EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU GO ABOUT PICKING JUDGES, PARTICULARLY APPELLATE JUDGES?
A     WELL, I THINK THAT YOU WOULD. AND SO MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT COME BEFORE THE COURT ARE NOT NECESSARILY TRIAL LAWYER TYPE ISSUES ON EITHER SIDE. I KNOW, WHEN I GO THROUGH THE ADVANCE SHEETS, I MENTALLY SKIP THOSE CASES I DON'T DEAL WITH, AND END UP READING JUST A VERY FEW CASES EACH TIME, BECAUSE OF AREAS OF THE LAW--BANKING, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE--OTHER TYPE THINGS THAT DO NOT DEAL WITH WHAT I CALL ACTUAL TRIAL WORK.
Q     MR. MAXWELL, IF YOU HAD AN ATTORNEY WHO WORKED IN THE SECURITIES AREA, PERHAPS IN CORPORATIONS OR BOND WORK, WOULD THAT PERSON HAVE AN ACTIVE TRIAL PRACTICE?
A     I WOULD NOT THINK SO.
Q     SOMEONE PERHAPS THAT WAS AS WELL KNOWN AND WELL RESPECTED AS MR. HUGER SINKLER PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE AN ACTIVE TRIAL PRACTICE, WOULD HE?
A     I DON'T EVER REMEMBER--I DON'T KNOW OF HIM TRYING A CASE THAT I'M AWARE OF.
Q     WOULD YOU CONSIDER MR. SINKLER COMPETENT TO SIT ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS?
A     IT WOULD BE EXCELLENT, I THINK, FROM ALL I KNOW ABOUT HIM.
Q     IF THE CRITERIA OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION IN SELECTING OR RATING CANDIDATES FOR JUDGESHIPS FOCUSED ON JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE AND ON TRIAL EXPERIENCE, WOULD THEY NOT BE NEGLECTING OTHER IMPORTANT LEGAL EXPERIENCE?
A     I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD.
MR. COUICK: I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? YES, SIR, REPRESENTATIVE HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     MR. MAXWELL, YOU APPEAR IN FEDERAL COURT FAIRLY FREQUENTLY, DO YOU NOT?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE FEDERAL JUDGES AND WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THEIR BACKGROUND. DENNIS SHEDD, I BELIEVE WAS RECENTLY APPOINTED TO THE FEDERAL COURT. WHAT TYPE OF EXPERIENCE DID HE HAVE IN TERMS OF TRIAL WORK IN THE FEDERAL COURT?
A     REPRESENTATIVE HODGES, I'M NOT AWARE OF HIM HAVING ANY EXTENSIVE LITIGATION EXPERIENCE. I KNOW OF SOME CASES HE HAS ASSOCIATED OTHER FRIENDS OF MINE ON, THAT--WHEN HE GOT INVOLVED IN CASES THAT WERE MAJOR LITIGATION CASES--THAT HE WOULD ASSOCIATE OUT OR HAVE PEOPLE HELP HIM WITH, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF HIM HAVING ESTABLISHED ANY REPUTATION AS A TRIAL LAWYER, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE HE'S A MEMBER OF OUR ASSOCIATION. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE DEFENSE LAWYERS, BUT I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY TRIAL EXPERIENCE THAT HE HAS.
Q     JUDGE HAMILTON, I BELIEVE WHO HAS GONE UP TO THE COURT OF APPEALS NOW?
A     RIGHT.
Q     IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT THAT HE DID NOT DO AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF TRIAL WORK BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE FEDERAL BENCH?
A     THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
Q     SO IN BOTH OF THESE CASES, IS MY UNDERSTANDING ALSO CORRECT THAT THE A.B.A. FOUND HIM QUALIFIED TO SIT AS A FEDERAL COURT JUDGE?
A     MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN AS YOU SAID, JUDGE HAMILTON HAS ADVANCED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS NOW. YES, SIR.
Q     AND YOU HAVE APPEARED IN FRONT OF BOTH OF THESE JUDGES?
A     I'VE NOT APPEARED IN FRONT OF JUDGE SHEDD, BUT I'VE HAD VERY FAVORABLE COMMENTS FROM THOSE WHO HAVE. I'VE NOT HEARD ANY NEGATIVES ABOUT HIS HANDLING OF TRIAL MATTERS FROM THOSE WHO APPEARED IN FRONT OF HIM. I GUESS THE ANSWER WOULD BE, WE IN THE TRIAL BAR HAVE BEEN PLEASANTLY SURPRISED, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK HE HAD MUCH EXPERIENCE, BUT HE APPARENTLY HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB FROM ALL WE'VE HEARD.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE YOU COMING. DO YOU HAVE ANY NEED--
MR. COUICK: (SHAKES HEAD.)
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YOU'RE FREE TO LEAVE ALSO.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 1:19 P.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: NEXT WITNESS, MR. COUICK.
MR. COUICK: IN VIEW OF THE TIME COMMITMENT THAT SENATOR WESLEY HAYES, JR., HAS, I'D LIKE TO CALL MR. HAYES TO THE STAND TO TESTIFY.

(WITNESS SWORN; 1:20 P.M.)

WHEREUPON, ROBERT W. HAYES, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF MR. COUICK.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     SENATOR, YOU ARE NOT ONLY A SENATOR FROM THE ROCK HILL/YORK COUNTY AREA, BUT YOU'RE ALSO AN ACTIVE BAR MEMBER, I BELIEVE, FROM THAT AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     IN FACT, DURING YOUR EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA LAW SCHOOL, I THINK YOU ALSO SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF THE STUDENT BAR ASSOCIATION; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     HAVE YOU REMAINED AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION IN THE YORK COUNTY AREA SINCE YOUR GRADUATION?
A     YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q     PLEASE CHARACTERIZE FOR THE COMMITTEE THE PRACTICE THAT YOU HAVE, WHETHER IT BE TRIAL COUNSELING OR WHATEVER OTHER TYPE OF LAW PRACTICE YOU HAVE IN THE ROCK HILL AREA.
A     JUST GENERAL CIVIL PRACTICE.
Q     HOW OFTEN DO YOU APPEAR IN COURT IN THAT AREA?
A     I DON'T APPEAR ALL THAT OFTEN, FRANKLY. IF YOU COUNT ALL THE COURTS, PROBABLY MAYBE ONCE A WEEK.
Q     WITHIN THAT OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR IN COURT AND ALSO TO WORK WITH OTHER ATTORNEYS IN NON-COURTROOM SETTINGS, HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE OTHER WELL-QUALIFIED ATTORNEYS IN THE YORK COUNTY AREA?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     WHAT DO YOU THINK MAKES A GOOD ATTORNEY, SENATOR HAYES?
A     WELL, I THINK OBVIOUSLY THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, AND A WILLINGNESS TO WORK HARD AND DILIGENTLY REPRESENT YOUR CLIENT. THOSE WOULD BE TWO CHARACTERISTICS THAT I THINK MAKE UP A GOOD ATTORNEY.
Q     IN TERMS OF TEMPERAMENT, WHAT QUALITIES WOULD YOU SAY ARE NECESSARY FOR A GOOD ATTORNEY?
A     I WOULD SAY EVEN-TEMPEREDNESS: ONE THAT COULD BE FORCEFUL WHILE NOT, YOU KNOW, ALIENATING THE OTHER PARTY OR THE OTHER SIDE.
Q     SENATOR, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO BE IN THE COURTROOM WHEN MR. HUFF HAS BEEN PRACTICING LAW, EITHER WITH HIM OR OPPOSING HIM?
A     NO, SIR, I HAVEN'T. MY KNOWLEDGE OF MR. HUFF'S ABILITY WAS SERVING WITH HIM IN THE HOUSE ON THE GENERAL LAW SUBCOMMITTEE; AND FOLLOWING THAT, ON THE FULL JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
Q     SO THE SCOPE OF TESTIMONY YOU WOULD OFFER TODAY WOULD BE WHAT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH, WITH YOUR SERVICE HERE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY?
A     CORRECT.
Q     MR. HAYES, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT TO BE THE PRACTICE OF LAW, AS WELL, IN A MORE GENERAL SENSE?
A     I THINK SO, AND PERHAPS--IT'S IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT, OBVIOUSLY THAN THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF LAW THAT YOU SEE BACK HOME, BUT I THINK IN A LOT OF WAYS IT'S A CHANCE TO DEMONSTRATE SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH AND OTHER THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT NOT SEE IN DOING THE DAY-TO-DAY CIVIL PRACTICE. SO I THINK--THE OPPORTUNITY THAT I HAD TO OBSERVE MR. HUFF, I THINK, WOULD BE OF SOME BENEFIT TO THIS COMMITTEE.
Q     PLEASE CHARACTERIZE, IF YOU WOULD, FOR THE COMMITTEE, HOW MR. HUFF MATCHES THOSE ATTRIBUTES YOU DESCRIBED FOR A GOOD ATTORNEY A FEW MINUTES AGO, BOTH IN THE WAY OF TEMPERAMENT AND ABILITY.
A     I THINK, IN MY OPINION, HE EXCELS AT BOTH. HE HAS A GOOD TEMPERAMENT FOR A LEGISLATOR AND A LAWYER, AND--IF CHOSEN--AS A JUDGE. I THINK HE HAS A GOOD, SOLID, EVEN TEMPERAMENT. HE CAN BE FORCEFUL, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME NOT ALIENATING ANYBODY HE'S DEALING WITH. AND I THINK HE HAS A GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, GOOD SCHOLARSHIP, AND A WILLINGNESS TO WORK HARD ON ISSUES--AND WE'VE WORKED ON SOME VERY DIFFICULT ONES. HE WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE WHEN WE WORKED ON TORT REFORM AND SOME OTHER THINGS, AND I THINK I HAD A GOOD CHANCE TO SEE HIM AT WORK IN THESE AREAS.
Q     MR. HAYES, YOUR FATHER WAS A JUDGE; AM I RIGHT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     HOW LONG DID HE SERVE ON THE BENCH?
A     HE SERVED FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS.
Q     AND YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE HIS DEMEANOR AND HIS QUALITIES. HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE--OBVIOUSLY, UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE IS A FATHER AND ONE IS A FRIEND, HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE MR. HUFF TO THE JUDICIAL CAPABILITIES YOUR FATHER HAD?
A     VERY FAVORABLY. VERY FAVORABLY. MY FATHER HAD A LOT OF TRIAL PRACTICE, BUT PRIMARILY CRIMINAL TRIAL PRACTICE, BEFORE HE BECAME A JUDGE. BUT I THINK HE WAS ABLE TO ADAPT, ONCE HE BECAME A JUDGE, AND HANDLED A WIDE VARIETY OF CASES THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO WHEN HE WAS A JUDGE.
Q     DID YOUR FATHER HAVE A WIDE CIVIL PRACTICE BEFORE ASSUMING THE BENCH?
A     MOSTLY CRIMINAL PRACTICE. HIS FIRM HAD CIVIL PRACTICE, BUT HE DID MOSTLY CRIMINAL PRACTICE FOR HIS FIRM.
Q     HAD YOUR FATHER WORKED WITH TAX MATTERS OR BOND MATTERS OR SECURITY MATTERS?
A     NO, I'M CONFIDENT HE DIDN'T.
Q     ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ADVANCE SHEETS ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS ON A WEEKLY BASIS?
A     I'M FAMILIAR WITH THEM, YES.
Q     IN REVIEWING THOSE, HOW MANY CASES WOULD YOU SAY ARE TRIAL PROCEDURAL MATTERS? WHAT PERCENTAGE, IF YOU HAD TO QUANTIFY?
A     PROBABLY HALF TO A THIRD.
Q     AS A MAX, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A THIRD AND HALF, HALF BEING THE MAXIMUM?
A     (NODS HEAD.)
Q     WHAT OTHER TYPES OF ISSUES HAVE YOU NOTED FROM READING THE ADVANCE SHEETS FROM THE COURT FROM TIME TO TIME?
A     WELL, I'M KIND OF IN THE SAME BOAT AS SOME OF THE OTHERS. I GO THROUGH AND PICK OUT--I DON'T DO ANY DOMESTIC WORK PARTICULARLY, OR CRIMINAL, SO I ELIMINATE SOME OF THOSE WHEN I'M GOING THROUGH. BUT YOU HAVE CERTAINLY SOME OTHER MATTERS DEALING WITH TAX AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND THOSE TYPES OF MATTERS. THEY REALLY DON'T DEAL DIRECTLY WITH TRIAL WORK.
Q     SENATOR, YOU'RE KIND OF IN A UNIQUE POSITION, HAVING BEEN A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, BEING THE SON OF A FORMER JUDGE, TO SAY WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU IN LOOKING FOR FUTURE JUDGES. WOULD THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY BE REMISS IF IT RESTRICTED ELECTION OF APPELLATE JUDGES ONLY TO PERSONS WITH EXTENSIVE TRIAL EXPERIENCE, OR PERSONS WHO HAD PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE?
A     I THINK THEY WOULD. OBVIOUSLY, JUDGE BELL WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE. HE CAME STRICTLY FROM ACADEMIA TO A GREAT EXTENT, MOVING ON TO BE, AS FAR AS I KNOW, A GOOD MEMBER OF THE COURT. I THINK YOU NEED A VARIETY. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO HAVE ALL YOUR COURT OF APPEALS OR SUPREME COURT COMING FROM THE SAME BASIS. I THINK HAVING A VARIETY IS HELPFUL FOR THE SYSTEM, SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED BY ANY OF THOSE BOUNDS. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU HAVE THE ACADEMIC ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO WORK, YOU CAN LEARN ANY SHORTCOMING THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
Q     SENATOR HAYES, DO YOU HAVE ANY SHARED FINANCIAL INTEREST--WHETHER IT BE A CASE, PROPERTY, OR OTHERWISE--WITH MR. HUFF?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS MR. HUFF?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     HAVE YOU PLEDGED TO MR. HUFF FOR THIS ELECTION?
A     NO.
Q     HAS HE ASKED YOU TO PLEDGE TO HIM FOR THIS ELECTION?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     HAS HE ASKED YOU TO SEEK THE PLEDGE OF ANY OTHER PERSON FOR THIS ELECTION?
A     NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THAT'S ALL.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 1:25 P.M.)
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. COUICK: MR. KELLY ZIER OF NORTH AUGUSTA, SOUTH CAROLINA.

(WITNESS SWORN; 1:25 P.M.)

WHEREUPON, KELLY F. ZIER, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: PLEASE ANSWER MR. COUICK'S QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. ZIER. IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, AND IF YOU NEED ANY DOCUMENTS WE'LL BE GLAD TO SUPPLY THEM.
A     FINE.
Q     MR. ZIER, YOU WERE SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE I BELIEVE LAST FRIDAY, OR SOMETIME OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS--
A     YES.
Q     --REGARDING YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. YOU WERE ASKED TO APPEAR HERE BY THE COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE YOU'RE A PRACTICING ATTORNEY IN THE NORTH AUGUSTA AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A PRACTICING ATTORNEY?
A     SINCE 1971.
Q     WHAT IS YOUR AREA OF PRACTICE IN THE NORTH AUGUSTA COMMUNITY?
A     PROBABLY ABOUT 40 PERCENT OF MY PRACTICE IS DEVOTED TO MY REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY OF NORTH AUGUSTA. I'VE BEEN CITY ATTORNEY FOR NORTH AUGUSTA SINCE '71. IN THAT, I DO ALL OF THEIR CIVIL WORK, AS WELL AS PROSECUTE ALL OF THE JURY TRIALS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I'D SAY PROBABLY THE BALANCE OF MY WORK, ABOUT 10 PERCENT IS REAL ESTATE, AND THE BALANCE WOULD BE CIVIL LITIGATION, WHETHER THROUGH THE CIRCUIT COURT OR THROUGH THE FAMILY COURT.
Q     NOW, IN FAMILY COURT MATTERS, WHAT TYPE OF MATTERS WOULD YOU HANDLE BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT? IS IT MAINLY JUVENILE JUSTICE OR MARITAL ISSUES?
A     ALL OF IT. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY MORE MARITAL ISSUES THAN JUVENILE.
Q     WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF FAMILIAR, AFTER YOUR 22 YEARS OF PRACTICE IN COURT THERE IN NORTH AUGUSTA, WITH THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE IN THE NORTH AUGUSTA COMMUNITY?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO EITHER OPPOSE OR SERVE AS CO-COUNSEL WITH MR. HUFF IN THE SAME COURTROOM?
A     I DON'T THINK TOM AND I HAVE EVER HANDLED A CASE TOGETHER. I WOULD SAY THAT PROBABLY--AND PARTICULARLY, MORE SO IN FAMILY COURT--THAT TOM AND I ARE PROBABLY OPPOSING EACH OTHER A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH. I'D SAY, IT'S FAIRLY EXTENSIVE--I HAVEN'T GONE BACK AND REVIEWED MY FILES, BUT JUST THINKING OVER THAT PRACTICE--AND THAT WE ARE PROBABLY IN FAMILY COURT QUITE A BIT TOGETHER.
Q     OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN IN COURT TOGETHER A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH?
A     OH, I'D SAY AT LEAST OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, MAYBE FIVE YEARS.
Q     SO OVER FIVE YEARS AT A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH; THAT'S 24 TIMES A YEAR. 120 TIMES THAT YOU MAYBE HAVE HAD OCCASION--
A     YEAH. AS I SAY, I HAVE NOT GONE BACK AND REVIEWED NUMBERS OF FILES, BUT THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT. I PRACTICE MAINLY IN AIKEN COUNTY, BUT DO A GOOD BIT OF WORK IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY, AND TOM PRACTICES IN THOSE TWO. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR ME TO SERVE PAPERS ON DOMESTIC MATTERS AND GET A CALL FROM TOM THAT HE'S ON THE OTHER SIDE.
Q     MR. ZIER, IN YOUR OBSERVING MR. HUFF'S COURTROOM ABILITY AND DEMEANOR, PLEASE GIVE THE COMMITTEE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HOW YOU WOULD CHARACTERIZE BOTH THE DEMEANOR AND CAPABILITY OF MR. HUFF.
A     WELL, CAPABILITY, I ALWAYS FEEL THAT TOM IS PREPARED. CERTAINLY I NEVER FEEL THAT EITHER ONE OF US HAS AN ADVANTAGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER; THAT WE BOTH ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LAW. AND I THINK THAT ALONG WITH THAT, AS WELL AS DEMEANOR, I FIND THAT TOM AND I PROBABLY RESOLVE AN AWFUL LOT OF THE CASES THAT WE'RE INVOLVED WITH, BY WAY OF SETTLEMENT. AND I THINK--MY GENERAL FEELING IS THAT--AND I MAY BE TRYING TO BE KIND TO MYSELF--BUT I THINK THAT IS A MARK, A LOT OF TIMES, OF GOOD ATTORNEYS, IN THAT YOU CAN EVALUATE CASES BECAUSE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE LAW; YOU'RE FAMILIAR, AND YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THAT AREA, AND YOU CAN EVALUATE WITH WHAT THE POTENTIAL OUTCOME COULD BE ON BOTH SIDES. THEN, IF YOU HAVE REASONABLE COUNSEL ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU CAN SIT DOWN--REALIZING WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH--AND HOPEFULLY COME TO SOME SORT OF SOLUTION THAT DOES, AS BEST YOU CAN IN THAT COURT, OF HELPING BOTH SIDES GET TO A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. NOW, THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SETTLE ALL OF OUR CASES. I'M SAYING THAT, BY DEALING WITH THE MATTER OF DEMEANOR AND THE WAY THAT I'M ABLE TO DEAL WITH HIM, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING I'VE ALWAYS EXPERIENCED AS BEING GOOD. OTHER CASES, CERTAINLY THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THE ISSUES--AND PARTICULARLY, I WOULD TELL YOU, IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES--WHERE THERE'S NO SETTLEMENT OF THOSE ISSUES AND THEY'RE MATTERS THAT HAVE TO BE TRIED, AND WE PROCEEDED TO TRY THOSE, AND HE'S ALWAYS BEEN PREPARED AND ALWAYS REPRESENTED HIS CLIENTS WELL.
Q     HARD TO CUT THE CHILDREN IN HALF, ISN'T IT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     MR. ZIER, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO BE INTERVIEWED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION?
A     YES. YES, I WAS.
Q     WHO INTERVIEWED YOU?
A     MS. GRAY INTERVIEWED ME BY TELEPHONE.
Q     MS. GRAY WHO WAS JUST BEFORE THE COMMITTEE A FEW MINUTES AGO?
A     RIGHT.
Q     WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MS. GRAY BEFORE SHE CAME AND ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS?
A     NO, SIR, I HAD NEVER MET HER BEFORE.
Q     DID SHE TELL YOU SHE WAS FROM COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA?
A     SHE MAY HAVE. I DON'T REALLY RECALL.
Q     GENERALLY, WHAT DID YOU TELL MS. GRAY ABOUT MR. HUFF'S CAPABILITIES?
A     WELL, I THINK GENERALLY THE STATEMENTS I'VE MADE TO YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH ALONG THE LINES OF PRECISELY WHAT I TOLD HER; THAT I FELT LIKE TOM WAS COMPETENT, HAD REPRESENTED HIS CLIENTS WELL, HAD DONE A GOOD JOB; THAT I CERTAINLY HAD NO QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS, AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, NOR AS TO HIS QUALIFICATIONS TO SIT ON THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Q     WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD MS. GRAY THAT MR. HUFF HAD A VERY LIMITED CIVIL PRACTICE IN COMMON PLEAS COURT?
A     NO, SIR. IF ANYTHING, I MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT I HAD LIMITED PRACTICE WITH HIM, ALTHOUGH TOM AND I HAVE CERTAINLY HANDLED CIVIL CASES IN CIRCUIT COURT. IN FACT, WE HAVE ONE CASE RIGHT NOW THAT'S ON APPEAL THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HEARD, I THINK, WITHIN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS, AT THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Q     WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD MS. GRAY THAT HE HAS A VERY LIMITED CRIMINAL PRACTICE IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT?
A     NO, SIR, BECAUSE I REALLY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH EARLY ON IN MY PRACTICE I DID A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CRIMINAL WORK, IN THE LAST TEN YEARS I'VE DONE VERY LITTLE.
Q     WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD MS. GRAY THAT MR. HUFF HAD HANDLED A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF APPEALS?
A     NO, SIR. ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT.
Q     WOULD YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO WHAT MS. GRAY CHARACTERIZED AS A PATTERN OF NEGATIVE RATINGS ABOUT LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP, LEGAL SKILLS, AND LEGAL KNOWLEDGE?
A     NOTHING THAT I KNOW OF THAT I SAID COULD HAVE BEEN IN ANY WAY INTERPRETED IN THAT MANNER.
Q     HOW ABOUT A LACK OF BROAD LEGAL EXPERIENCE? WOULD YOU HAVE COMMUTED THAT IN ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SAID THAT SHE COULD HAVE GATHERED, THAT HE HAD A LACK OF BROAD LEGAL EXPERIENCE?
A     NO, SIR. IN FACT, I THINK THE CONVERSATION I HAD DEALING WITH THE AREAS THAT I'VE DEALT WITH MR. HUFF ON, SHOWED A KIND OF A BROAD INVOLVEMENT, BECAUSE I HAVE DEALT WITH TOM IN MUNICIPAL COURT, MUNICIPAL MATTERS CONCERNING THE CITY, MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FAMILY COURTS, CIRCUIT COURTS, AND THE APPELLATE COURT.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD AN OCCASION TO TAKE AN APPEAL TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS OR SUPREME COURT IN YOUR LEGAL PRACTICE?
A     YES.
Q     AND HAS IT BEEN YOUR OPINION BEFORE THE COURT, AS SCREENED BY THIS COMMITTEE AND ELECTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PREPARED FOR THE CASE WHEN YOU ARRIVE THERE AND ARE CAPABLE OF HEARING YOUR ARGUMENTS AND UNDERSTANDING YOUR ARGUMENTS?
A     YES. PARTICULARLY, I WOULD SAY, IN THE LAST TEN YEARS--OR PARTICULARLY, DEALING WITH THE APPEALS COURT--I'VE BEEN VERY MUCH IMPRESSED BY THEIR PREPARATION AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTER WHEN YOU ARRIVE TO ARGUE IT. IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THEY HAVE REVIEWED WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY FILED.
Q     HAVE YOU NOTICED ANY SEVERE LIMITATION ON THE PART OF JUDGES GOOLSBY AND BELL, AND, I GUESS, GARDNER--AND ONE OTHER, WHO I DON'T RECALL THE NAME RIGHT NOW--IN THAT THEY WERE NOT FORMER MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY? DID THEY SEEM TO HAVE ANY LIMITATION--
A     NO, SIR.
Q     --ON UNDERSTANDING YOUR LEGAL POINTS?
A     NONE WHATSOEVER.
Q     CONSIDERING EXPERIENCE FOR APPELLATE JUDICIARY POSITIONS, IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER SOMEONE THAT HAD JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE BUT WITH A LIMITED APPELLATE PRACTICE, AS OPPOSED TO SOMEONE THAT HAD AN AVERAGE AMOUNT OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND A VERY BROAD-BASE TRIAL/COUNSELING PRACTICE, WOULD IT BE CONCEIVABLE TO YOU THAT THE FIRST COULD BE RANKED AS WELL QUALIFIED AND THE LAST COULD BE RANKED AS NOT QUALIFIED?
A     I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, AND LET ME ANSWER IT THIS WAY, AND THEN IF I HAVEN'T RESPONDED IF YOU'LL ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. I WOULD SAY THIS: I THINK CERTAINLY WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH A CIRCUIT COURT POSITION, THAT TRIAL EXPERIENCE PROBABLY HAS A MUCH GREATER NEED MAYBE THAN IT DOES IN AN APPELLATE COURT POSITION, IN THAT I THINK APPELLATE COURT IS MORE--BY JUST WHAT IS DONE, IT'S LESS INVOLVED WITH IMMEDIATE DECISIONS AND RULES DECISIONS AND PROCEDURAL DECISIONS, AND CERTAINLY MUCH MORE INVOLVED IN QUITE FRANKLY GETTING DOWN TO THE ISSUES, REVIEWING THE ISSUES, STUDYING THE ISSUES AND MAKING LONG-RANGE DECISIONS; SO I THINK THAT THE NEED FOR--CERTAINLY, I HOPE THAT ANY SITTING JUDGE HAS SOME TRIAL EXPERIENCE, SO THAT HE KNOWS WHAT IT'S LIKE IN THE TRENCHES AND MAYBE IS A LITTLE MORE UNDERSTANDING, BUT I THINK THAT IT IS LESS OF A CONCERN BY WAY OF TRIAL EXPERIENCE FOR AN APPELLATE JUDGE THAN POSSIBLY IT WOULD BE FOR A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE.
Q     AND FINALLY, MR. ZIER, I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU DO HAVE SOME CRIMINAL EXPERIENCE; IS THAT RIGHT? CRIMINAL TRIAL EXPERIENCE?
A     YES. I SERVED AS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR AIKEN COUNTY BACK IN THE EARLY SEVENTIES FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS; AND AS I SAY, FOR 21 YEARS, I'VE TRIED ALL THE MUNICIPAL COURT JURY TRIALS.
Q     IN YOUR SERVICE AS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, WERE YOU EVER CALLED UPON TO PRESENT CASES FOR THE STATE AGAINST CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS?
A     OH, YES, SIR.
Q     AND IN PRESENTING YOUR CASE, WERE YOU EVER ABLE TO PUT IN WHAT I WOULD CALL A HEARSAY SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST A DEFENDANT?
A     NOT THAT I EVER RECALL.
Q     WHY WOULD YOU NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT IN THE COURTROOM?
A     BECAUSE, AS I--WELL, BECAUSE THE OTHER ATTORNEY'S GOING TO JUMP UP AND OBJECT, IS THE MAIN THING.
Q     BUT WHY? WHAT'S THE GRAVAMEN OF THAT OBJECTION?
A     THE WHOLE BASIS IS THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER, AND IN HEARSAY YOU DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.
Q     AND WHEN YOU HAVE HEARSAY AND, PLUS, YOU HAVE A SUMMARY, THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS INHERENT THERE: ONE IS THAT YOU HAVE NO CAPABILITY OF VERIFYING THE INFORMATION, BUT ALSO THE SUMMARY, BY MERE SUMMARIZATION, SOMEHOW THOSE INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS LOSE THEIR INDIVIDUAL FLAVOR, DO THEY NOT?
A     YES, SIR. IT'S A THIRD PARTY'S INTERPRETATION OF WHAT WAS SAID.
Q     AND AREN'T THERE SPECIFIC RULES, EVEN IN CIVIL TRIAL COURT, THAT YOU CANNOT RECONSTRUCT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT, TO SOME DEGREE, BECAUSE IT HAS THE CAPABILITY OF COLORING HOW THE JURY MAY LOOK AT IT?
A     THERE ARE VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH YOU CAN DO IT. THE OTHER PARTY HAS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND REVIEW IT, AND AT EVERY POINT MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING WHICH TAINTS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESENT.
Q     AND THIS NOTION OF THE ABILITY TO CONFRONT WITNESSES AND NOTE HEARSAY, AND SO FORTH, ARE THEY TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL?
A     THEY'RE TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL; AND I THINK, GENERALLY, ANYBODY, BEFORE THEY EVER GET THERE, IS AWARE OF THAT.
Q     BUT IF YOU WERE A PRACTICING LAWYER--PARTICULARLY, IF YOU WERE A WELL-KNOWN, PROMINENT MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, YOU WOULD BE EXPECTED TO KNOW THOSE PRINCIPLES.
A     OBVIOUSLY SO.
Q     HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE BAR ASSOCIATION IS DOING?
A     I'M NOT HERE TO EXPLAIN.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
SENATOR MOORE: I HAVE ONE QUESTION. NOT BEING AN ATTORNEY, MR. ZIER, CAN IT BE CATEGORIZED THAT WAS WHAT IS CALLED LEADING A WITNESS?
WITNESS: I THINK SO.
MR. COUICK: NOBODY OBJECTED.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YES, SIR, REPRESENTATIVE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE:

Q     IN YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE OTHER BAR MEMBERS OF EDGEFIELD AND AIKEN COUNTIES, HAS IT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS OR ANYTHING, ABOUT MR. HUFF?
A     NO, SIR. TOM WAS WELL RESPECTED BY BOTH OF THE BARS, AS FAR AS I'M FAMILIAR WITH.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: REPRESENTATIVE HODGES?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q     YOU HAVE BEEN PRACTICING IN NORTH AUGUSTA SINCE '71; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     I DON'T HAVE HIS PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT MR. HUFF HAS BEEN PRACTICING SINCE SOMETIME IN THE LATE SEVENTIES OR MID-SEVENTIES?
A     THAT'S RIGHT, YES.
Q     SO YOUR CAREERS HAVE PRETTY MUCH PARALLELED?
A     I THINK SO. I THINK WHEN I FIRST MET TOM, HE WAS WORKING AT BELK'S IN NORTH AUGUSTA, WHEN I WAS STRUGGLING TRYING TO MAKE A BUCK WHEN I FIRST OPENED UP MY OFFICE; THEN, TOM WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AFTER THAT AND CAME BACK AND OPENED UP HIS OFFICE IN NORTH AUGUSTA. I THINK TOM WAS THE FOURTH--I WAS THE SECOND ATTORNEY IN THE AREA, AND HE WAS THE FOURTH.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WE APPRECIATE IT, AND YOU'RE FREE TO GO.
WITNESS: OKAY, THANK YOU.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 1:39 P.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: Y'ALL, WE HAVE REACHED A POINT THAT THE NEXT WITNESS, I BELIEVE, IS MS. BAZZLE. I'M INFORMED, MS. BAZZLE, WE NEED TO STOP AT THIS POINT--SOME MEMBERS HAVE A CONFLICT--AND COME BACK AND RECONVENE. WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A FULL COMMITTEE MEETING THAT I'VE GOT TO PRESIDE OVER AT 2:30, SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT BACK; OR IF I DO, I'M GOING TO BE LATE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN SCARE UP A QUORUM HERE ON THE HOUSE SIDE.
REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE: IT'LL BE LATE AFTERNOON BEFORE I CAN GET BACK HERE. 3:00 TO 3:30.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: LET'S TRY FOR LIKE 3:15 AND SEE IF THAT--WOULD THAT BE ABOUT--AND IF YOU CAN'T, WOULD A COUPLE OF YOU SEND YOUR PROXIES SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET IT DOWN?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: YEAH.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THE ROOM WILL BE LOCKED UP, SO IF YOU WISH TO LEAVE YOUR STUFF, YOU'RE FREE TO.

(LUNCH RECESS FROM 1:40 P.M. TO 3:15 P.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING--JUDICIAL SCREENING BACK TO ORDER, STILL DEALING WITH THE JUDGE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS, SEAT #1. WE'RE STILL ON THE SUBJECT OF MR. HUFF--REPRESENTATIVE HUFF--AND HIS CANDIDACY. IS IT PRONOUNCED BAZZLE?
MS. BAZZLE: BAZZLE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WE HAVE MS. BAZZLE.

(WITNESS SWORN; 3:16 P.M.)

WHEREUPON, CAROLYN ANDERSON BAZZLE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, MA'AM. PLEASE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MR. COUICK MIGHT HAVE FOR YOU.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MS. BAZZLE, IF I COULD SHOW YOU THE WITNESS AFFIDAVIT FORM, AT THE TOP OF IT IS MARKED "1:50 P.M.," AND ON THE FIRST PAGE IT'S SIGNED BY YOU ON THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 1993, AND ALSO NOTARIZED THAT SAME DATE. WOULD THAT BE THE COMPLAINT THAT YOU FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE? IT'S A COPY OF WHAT YOU GAVE ME.
A     IT STARTED ON THE FRONT PAGE WITH ITEM ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR, AND SINCE IT WAS NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THERE, I FIRST WAS GOING TO USE NOTEBOOK PAPER AND THEN--
Q     BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO IDENTIFY IT NOW. I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE HEADING, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO IDENTIFY IT. THIS IS YOUR COMPLAINT?
A     RIGHT, THE WHOLE THING ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
Q     YES, MA'AM.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D ASK THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE THE COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT FORM REDUCED TO TYPEWRITTEN FORM AND INCLUDED IN THE RECORD AS AN EXHIBIT SO THAT WE CAN FACILITATE THIS COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION OF THE WHOLE DOCUMENT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY OBJECTION?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: IF THERE'S NONE, WE WILL DO SO.

WITNESS
AFFIDAVIT
FORM
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
FOR JUDICIAL SCREENING
CONFIDENTIAL

In the Matter of Thomas E. Huff of N. Augusta.,S. C. candidate for the Court of Appeals Court Seat Number #1 (one), of Judgeship (Seat 1) Circuit.
Court of Appeals Judgeship #1 (one)

I will appear to testify concerning the qualifications of the above-named candidate and will produce all documents in my possession, if any, which will further develop or corroborate my testimony.

I understand that this written statement must be completed and returned to the Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the hearing at which I wish to testify in order for the committee to hear my testimony.

In regard to my intended testimony, I will offer information as to the following:

(1) Set forth your full name, age, address, and both home and work telephone numbers.

Mrs. Carolyn Anderson Bazzle
955 Brookhaven Drive
Aiken, South Carolina 29803
Home 803-648-8192

Disabled due to toxic chemicals exposure from October 23, 1978, thru November 18, 1982 - occupational disease injury 11-18-1982 as a welder

(2) Set forth the names, addresses, and telephone numbers (if known) of other persons who have knowledge of the facts concerning your testimony.

1.     The South Carolina Workers Compensation Commission
*Ms. Kay B. Shealy, Claims Director
737-5700 or 737-5723
Especially Ms. Kay Shealy
Totally Disabled

2.     The South Carolina Labor Dept.
Inspection of Precision Machine Works

3.     Ms. Celeste Tiller Jones, Attorney &
Mr. Charles Porter, Attorney
McNair Law Firm, P.A.
803-799-9800

4.     Solicitor R. Morgan, Second Judicial Circuit
Aiken, South Carolina
803-642-1557
Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan

5.     Solicitor Richard A. Harpootlian, Fifth Judicial Circuit
803-748-4785

6.     SLED
1.     Mr. Douglas R. Hixon, Agent
803-737-9000 Columbia, S.C.
2.     Mr. Paul Grant, Jr., Agent (Cricket)
803-737-9000 or 803-642-7689
Aiken, South Carolina office

Met in my home on May 18, 1992, Monday, 9:30 a.m.

7.     Lieutenant Governor Nick A. Theodore
803-734-2080 (Ms. Pam Davis)
Meet with Lt. Governor on October 31, 1991 and my husband, William H. Bazzle & son, Brooks W. H. Bazzle

8.     Office of The Governor - South Carolina
Mr. W. Jefferson Bryson, Jr. - since April 1992
803-734-0457
308 Edgar A. Brown Bldg. - 1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201
9.     Captain Carlton Medley (SLED)
803/737-9000 P. O. Box 21398, Columbia, S.C. 29221-1398

10.     State Newspaper (Columbia, S. Carolina)
1-800-888-5353 or 803-768-4848
Mr. Sammy Fretwell, Reporter - Did (2) different articles on my case/injury 11-18-1982 (Mr. Thomas E. Huff, Attorney) on March 29, 1993 & April 1, 1993.

11.     The Augusta Chronicle - Ms. Alice Daniel, Reporter did an article on it on March 31, 1993

12.     Commissioner William Clyburn - South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
803-737-5700, 1612 Marion St., Columbia, S. Carolina

13.     Commissioner Marvin F. Kittrell
S. C. Workers' Comp. Com., 1612 Marion St., Columbia, S.C. 29202-1715, 803-737-5700

14.     Dr. Michael S. Haynes
Augusta Diagnostic Associates
Pulmonary Medicine
office 706-855-5873
My doctor since February 1981
3623 J. Dewey Gray Circle, Suite 107, Augusta, Georgia 30910

15.     Dr. Joseph M. Echols
1430 Harper Street, Augusta, Georgia 30910
OB/GYN 706-724-2261 office (nurse, Claudia)
My doctor since December 31, 1965.

16.     Dr. Rajko D. Medenica, Ph.D.
(office 803-681-8505) nurse, Theresa
P. O. Box 21569, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29925
(My doctor since October 25, 1988, referred by U.S.F.&G. Co.)
(6) Plasmapheresis Treatments

17.     Dr. Newton G. Quantz, Jr. - Otolaryngology Assoc.
2283 Wrightsboro Road (10)
Augusta, Georgia 30910-0496
706-738-0241 (nurse, Vickie)
Doctor since August 1986 (8-25-1986)

Dr. Joseph Martin Echols 706-724-2261
Dr. Newton G. Quantz, Jr. 706-738-0241
Dr. Rajko D. Medenica 803-681-8505
They (The (3) Three Doctors came to my Hearing on October 25, 1990 in Aiken, S.C. Court - (Aiken County Circuit Court of Common Pleas - Place of Hearing - before Commissioner Thomas M. Marchant, III, S.C. Workers' Compensation Commission on Lifetime Medical Benefits settled on July 25, 1985 & approved by the Commission, my attorney Mr. Thomas E. Huff since May 2, 1983 Monday night when he asked me for my case/injury as a welder/machinist from Oct. 23, 1978 - Nov. 18, 1982 & injury date set as 11-18-1982. I worked with many chemicals that damaged my whole body, not just my respiratory system/lungs. Worked at Precision Machine Works, Inc. Aiken, S.C.

18.     Mr. T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General
P. O. Box 11549
Columbia, S.C. 29211 (April 1992)
&
Mr. Nathan Kaminski, Jr. Letter dated April 28, 1992 to me
Executive Assistant for Administration
Rembert C. Dennis Bldg. - P. O. Box 11549
803-734-3970 - Facsmile 803-253-6283

19.     Mr. Ros Huff, Attorney at Law (Brother)
142 Lordship Lane
Irmo, South Carolina 29063 (Home 803-781-8205)
Mr. Ros Huff worked as an Attorney at the State Workers' Compensation Fund till July 1993.
office 803-737-9450 1-800-521-6576

20.     Ms. Gwen Adkins, Assistant Director
State Workers' Compensation Fund
Mr. Irvin D. Parker, Director (S.W.C.F.)
803-737-9450 1-800-521-6576
Fax #803-731-1428
Ms. Mary Elliott, Attorney (Staff Attorney)
Freedom of Information Act - To see the File No. 8238192 I.C.File Nov. 8, 1982 Date & File No: I.C.File: 8241962 March 10, 1983 Dated March 10, 1983.
File of Bobby L. Davis - Columbia Fire Dept. Injury
Freedom of Information - I saw the File at 1612 Marion Street - State of South Carolina Workers Compensation Commission on March 17, 1992 and I saw the File at The State Workers' Compensation Fund on March 24, 1992 and again on May 12, 1992 (5-12-1992)(S.W.C.F.) & verified in writing the Form No:50 of The Bobby L. Davis File on back of each of my copies they released to me on March 24, 1992 and May 12, 1992. Form list (injury) as Lungs & mine is filled out just like it & I was damaged all over due to Toxic Chemicals Exposure from Oct. 23, 1978 - Nov. 18, 1982 and Injury set as 11-18-1982 occupational disease & totally disabled due to the chemicals to my whole body & immune system, even through Social Security Disability Benefits also.

21.     Mr. James Huff, Attorney at Law (Brother)
238 Edgefield Road - P. O. Box 6488
North Augusta, South Carolina 29841
office 803-279-6600 Fax (803) 278-3943

22.     Mr. Jimmy Calhoun, Former F.B.I. Agent - United State vs. Leonard Browder, The Browder Company, Inc.

Mr. Jimmy Calhoun, Former F.B.I. Agent
Columbia, South Carolina area
call Ms. Celeste Tiller Jones, Attorney or Mr. Charles Porter, Attorney for his Full Name, address and telephone number.
The case of:
United States of America
-v-
Leonard Browder: James Michael Locklair; Martin Thomas Johnson; Leonel "Sam" Ergle; Marian O'Rear: Aiken Drug Company, Inc., d/b/a Aiken Drug Co. and The Browder Company, Inc., Inc., d/b/a Woodruff Rexall Drugs and Woodruff Drug Store
I was served with a Subpoena in case number: CR.1:89-00058 in reference to The United States District Court, District of South Carolina - aiken Division, served on May 4, 1989 (Thursday morning) to appear on Thursday, May 18, 1989 11:00 A.M.. Questions may be addressed
To:     Charles Porter, Esquire
Celeste Tiller Jones, Esquire
McNair Law Firm, P.A.
P. O. Box 11390
Columbia, S. Carolina 29211
803-799-9800

(D.H.E.C.) Investigation Into all the listed above drug stores for wrong doings in how medicine was filled & mine was pulled to find some wrong, but they pulled my medicine for a few months (found nothing) so then they pulled it & checked it for a year back on everything I had ever purchased. still no wrongs.

(3) State the nature of your testimony regarding the qualifications of the above-named judicial candidate, including:

Please refer to Commissioner William Clyburn's Order dated December 10, 1991. Mr. Thomas E. Huff was ordered to repay me money he had over charged & had not reported the money till I was made aware of it

(a) specific facts relating to the candidate's character, competency, or ethics, including any and all allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of the candidate;

(b) specific dates, places, and times at which or during which such allegations took place;

(c) names of any persons present during such alleged actions or possessing evidence of such alleged actions; and,

(d) how this information relates to the qualifications of the judicial candidate.

1.     The filing of Carolyn Anderson Bazzle's work-related/occupational disease injury due to Toxic Chemicals Exposure from Oct. 23, 1978 -Nov. 18, 1982. Injury/Date 11-18-1982 as a Welder: Form No.:#50 filled out wrong, I suffered chemicals to the whole body, not just lungs/respiratory disease in the exact same manner as Claimant Bobby L. Davis Form No.:#50. My injury should never been filed lungs.

2.     Dates on papers/documents are listed wrong from May 2, 1983 thru May 20, 1991, even till present time.

3.     Mr. Thomas E. Huff has worked my case/injury from May 2, 1983 (Monday night at his request/asking for my case and told me, Mr. Franklin D. Beattie, Jr. had been caught taking money from Claimants - injured employees that was not legal. Mr. Huff promised to be Honest and Hard working on my case and never charge more than the Legal 1/3 (one-third) of the case & no more money, ever, & it he said it was not legal to charge more either.

4.     (Conflict of Interest)
Mr. Thomas E. Huff, Mr. Ros Huff, and Mr. James Huff voided the codes of ethics in my case, The Huff Brothers.

(4) Set forth a list of and provide a copy of any and all documents to be produced at the hearing which relate to your testimony regarding the qualifications of the judicial candidate.

See Motions dated as follows:

1.     January 19, 1992 Motion (Attorney Fees & Issues)
2.     January 23, 1992 Motion to add more information on my case - injury 11-18-1982. Attorney Fees & Issues.
3.     May 14, 1992 Attorney Fee & Issues.

Mr. Thomas E. Huff was found guilty & ordered to repay me, Claimant the last money you charged me from August 1989 - May 1991 & there is more money that he never reported (see Order dated Dec. 20, 1992 by Com. William Clyburn. I am being denied medical care due to his wrongful acts & overcharging me also.

(5) State any other facts you feel are pertinent to the screening of this judicial candidate.

**     I understand that the information I have provided herein is confidential and is not to be disclosed to anyone except the Judicial Screening Committee and counsel.

/s/ Carolyn Anderson Bazzle
Signature
Sworn to me this 26th day of April, 1993.
/s/Thomas R. (illegible) L.S.
Notary Public of South Carolina
My commission expires: May 11, 1994.
__________________________________________
Signature

Sworn to me this________day of_______________________19__.
_________________________ L.S.
Notary Public of South Carolina

My commission expires:_____________________________.

MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THE REASON I ASKED FOR THAT, MS. BAZZLE SPENT A GOOD BIT OF TIME PREPARING THIS AFFIDAVIT. AS I SAID THIS MORNING, I TEND TO CHARACTERIZE THIS AFFIDAVIT AS FOCUSING ON FOUR MAIN AREAS. SHE HAS ADDED INTO THE AFFIDAVIT 22 WITNESSES OR FACT SCENARIOS THAT UNDERPIN THOSE FOUR AREAS, BUT SHE BASICALLY HAS FOUR COMPLAINTS, AS YOUR COUNSEL READS THIS AFFIDAVIT. I WILL GO THROUGH, JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF REVIEW, GO THROUGH THE FOUR COMPLAINTS ONE MORE TIME.
Q     ONE IS A MATTER OF COMPETENCY, THAT MR. HUFF WRONGLY FILLED OUT HER FORM NUMBER 50; AND, TO THE EXTENT THAT HE WRONGLY OR NEGLIGENTLY FILLED THAT OUT, THAT SHE HAS SUFFERED MONETARY LOSS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT OF YOUR NUMBER ONE, MS. BAZZLE?
A     MEDICAL LOSS, WHICH IS MONETARY TOO.
Q     THE SECOND ONE IS THAT MR. HUFF CHANGED DATES ON PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS, AND TO SOME DEGREE--ON SOME OF THOSE DOCUMENTS--THAT HAD A PREJUDICIAL EFFECT ON MS. BAZZLE; IN PARTICULAR, A PREJUDICIAL EFFECT UPON HER HANDLING OF--THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION'S HANDLING OF A CLAIM THAT SHE HAD BEFORE THEM AS TO REPRESENTATION AND FEES. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT OF NUMBER TWO, MS. BAZZLE?
A     THERE ARE SOME DATES THAT WAS NOT CORRECT--
Q     OTHER DATES, BUT--
A     --AND THERE WAS SOME DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALTERED.
Q     RIGHT. BUT THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT OF IT GENERALLY?
A     YES.
Q     NUMBER THREE IS THAT MR. HUFF--AND THIS IS A TWO-PART COMPLAINT--MR. HUFF WORKED HER CASE AND MORE OR LESS TOOK HER CASE FROM MR. FRANKLIN D. BEATTY, AND THE WAY HE TOOK IT WAS BY MISCHARACTERIZING MR. BEATTY'S CONDUCT ON PAST OCCASIONS, AS IT WOULD RELATE TO CLIENTS. AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT COMPLAINT IS THAT HE TOOK MORE THAN THE FEE--OR ATTEMPTED TO TAKE MORE THAN THE FEE THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO UNDER THE AGREEMENT HE HAD WITH MS. BAZZLE. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF THAT THIRD ONE?
A     YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MR. HUFF OR MR. BEATTY?
Q     MR. HUFF.
A     MR. HUFF TOLD ME THAT MR. BEATTY HAD BEEN CAUGHT TAKING CLAIMANTS' CHECKS. YES, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
Q     MS. BAZZLE--AND I'LL GO BACK.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR THE RECORD, MR. BEATTY IS NOT HERE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO HANDLE THIS THING IN AS FAIR A MANNER AS POSSIBLE TO MR. BEATTY.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, I'D RATHER NOT TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL ALLEGATION, SINCE HE'S NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF. BUT YOUR ALLEGATION IS THAT THE WAY HE GOT YOUR REPRESENTATION WAS BY MISCHARACTERIZING MR. BEATTY'S CONDUCT--
A     YES, SIR.
Q     --AS TO WHAT HE DID. AND SECONDLY, THAT HE ENTERED INTO A FEE AGREEMENT WITH YOU THAT LIMITED HIS FEE TO ONE-THIRD OF AMOUNTS RECOVERED, AND THAT HE ACTUALLY TOOK MORE MONEY THAN THAT, OR ATTEMPTED TO TAKE MORE MONEY THAN THAT?
A     HE TOOK MORE MONEY THAN THAT.
Q     BUT SOME OF THAT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO YOU?
A     SOME HAS. SOME OF IT IS STILL ON APPEAL.
Q     YES, MA'AM. AND THE FOURTH ONE IS THAT MR. HUFF AND HIS BROTHERS, ROS AND JAMES, VIOLATED THE CODE OF ETHICS, IN THAT THEY HAD CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, PARTICULARLY MR. ROS HUFF AND MR. JAMES HUFF. AND SHE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE COURSE OF MY INTERVIEWING HER THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN OTHER ETHICAL CONFLICTS MR. TOM HUFF HAD; AND I MORE OR LESS SUMMARIZED THOSE THIS MORNING, THE TERMS OF THE CONFLICTS THAT MR. ROS HUFF AND MR. JIM HUFF HAD. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF NUMBER FOUR, MS. BAZZLE?
A     NOT COMPLETELY, BECAUSE THE CONFLICTS WERE DIFFERENT CONFLICTS.
Q     YES, MA'AM, THAT'S WHAT I SAID. I SUMMARIZED--MR. TOM HUFF HAD ONE TYPE OF CONFLICT; MR. ROS HUFF HAD A CONFLICT, IN THAT HE WORKED FOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT, FOR THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND; AND THE OTHER BROTHER, JIM HUFF, HAD A CONFLICT, IN THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING--WAS INVOLVED IN A PHARMACY DISPUTE THERE.
A     HE STARTED OFF REPRESENTING A CLIENT AS A EMPLOYEE OF AIKEN DRUG CORPORATION, OR WHATEVER, AND THEN--
Q     AND THAT PERSON--
A     --HE TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE.
Q     AND YOUR ALLEGATION IS THAT PERSON HAD INTERESTS THAT WERE NOT ALIGNED WITH YOUR OWN, AND BY MR. HUFF AND MR. JIM HUFF BOTH BEING INVOLVED IN YOUR CASE AND HAVING ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, THEY MISUSED THAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN REPRESENTING THE OTHER CLIENT THAT WAS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE DRUG COMPANY?
A     I FEEL MR. HUFF HAS--TOM HUFF--BUT I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT MR. JAMES HUFF ACTUALLY--HE NEVER DEALT WITH ME DIRECTLY. I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY PLAIN.
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     BUT I WENT TO MR. TOM HUFF AND ASKED HIM FOR HELP BECAUSE MY MEDICAL HAD BEEN PULLED FOR THREE MONTHS.
Q     AND, MS. BAZZLE, LET ME MAKE SURE THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTANDS. WHEN YOU SAY YOUR MEDICAL, YOU HAD BEEN RECEIVING PHARMACY PRESCRIPTIONS FROM AIKEN DRUG STORE, RIGHT?
A     MY FAMILY HAS ALWAYS USED AIKEN DRUG.
Q     AND WHEN THEY DID A RANDOM AUDIT OF THAT FACILITY, THEY PULLED YOUR DRUG PRESCRIPTION--
A     MY NAME WAS GIVEN, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME--AN F.B.I.--I THINK AN F.B.I. AGENT, I'M NOT SURE, AND A DHEC INVESTIGATOR THAT WAS IN AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, AND THEY WERE GOING FROM DOOR TO DOOR TO DOCTORS, AND MY NAME WAS GIVEN AS A NAME THAT USED--THAT LIVED IN AIKEN AND USED AIKEN DRUGSTORE.
Q     AND THEN LATER MR. JIM HUFF STARTED REPRESENTING AN EMPLOYEE OF THAT COMPANY THAT WAS ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING.
A     MR. SAM ERGLE.
Q     HE WAS ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING?
A     (NODS HEAD.)
Q     AND THAT PERSON TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE, AND YOUR ALLEGATION IS THAT BECAUSE MR. TOM HUFF HAD INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR PRESCRIPTIONS AND ABOUT YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS, THAT THEY USED THAT INFORMATION IN THE DEFENSE OF MR. ERGLE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     THAT'S TRUE. HE REFUSED TO HELP ME.
Q     OKAY.
A     HE TOLD ME, FORGET ABOUT IT, THAT THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG HERE.
Q     OKAY. MS. BAZZLE--
A     BUT WHERE THE HARM HAS BEEN DONE IN THAT AREA IS, IS THAT I HAVE NUMEROUS DEPOSITIONS AND I HAVE RULINGS THAT USF&G AND THEIR TEAM OF LAWYERS--WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS PLACE LOOK SICK, COMPARED TO WHAT THEIR OFFICE LOOKS LIKE--HAS WROTE ME UP OVER AND OVER AS IF I HAD SOME ILLEGAL WRONGDOINGS WITH THAT DRUGSTORE.
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     AND I'M WROTE UP IN THE MARCH 18, 1991, RULING AS IF I WAS DOING SOMETHING WRONG. I WAS WROTE UP AT THE SUPREME COURT WHEN MY CASE WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND I HAD TO DEFEND MYSELF THERE BY MYSELF. EVERYWHERE I GO, I'M WROTE UP BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER EXPLAINED AT THE HEARING BY MR. TOM HUFF THAT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT; I WAS JUST A VICTIM.
Q     YES, MA'AM. MS. BAZZLE, IN ORDER THAT WE CAN ORGANIZE THIS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GO THROUGH THE CHARGES THAT YOU'VE MADE, THE FOUR, ONE BY ONE, AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS AND TRY TO GET AS BRIEF AN ANSWER AS YOU CAN GIVE, AND TRY TO BRING THE COMMITTEE UP TO DATE. TO THE EXTENT WE NEED TO GET DOCUMENTS TO BACK THAT UP, I WILL RELY UPON THE COMMITTEE TO TELL ME IF THEY NEED TO SEE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE, I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO HERE TODAY IS JUST REALLY SPIN OUR WHEELS. I THINK WHAT THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO HEAR IS WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO SAY. IF THEY DON'T TEND TO BELIEVE YOU, OR IF THEY NEED SOME CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL WORRY ABOUT THAT CORROBORATING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, OR EVIDENCE FROM A WITNESS, OKAY? SO WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE, AND I HOPE--I KNOW--I TRUST THAT WE WILL NOT IN ANY WAY PREJUDICE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. I THINK IT WILL JUST MAKE IT MORE UNDERSTANDABLE FOR THE COMMITTEE.
A     OKAY.
Q     GOING TO NUMBER ONE, YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE THERE IN AIKEN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND YOU WERE A WELDER, I BELIEVE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A     I WAS CLASSIFIED AS MACHINIST, MACHINIST-WELDER, OR WHATEVER. I MEAN, I WAS DOING SHOP TYPE WORK.
Q     AND YOU WERE WORKING THERE AND YOU WOULD DO WHAT THEY CALL BRAZING WELDING?
A     RIGHT.
Q     WHO DID YOU WORK FOR?
A     I WORKED FOR PRECISION MACHINE WORKS, INCORPORATION, D/B/A--JOHN W. HEATON WAS THE OWNER.
Q     AND YOU DID THAT WORK FROM, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, OCTOBER 23, 1978, UNTIL OCTOBER 18, 1982?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     AND BEFORE YOU CAME TO MR. HUFF YOU HAD NEVER FILED A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     NO, SIR. WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. LET'S BACK UP. YES, I HAVE, BECAUSE I CONTACTED THE LABOR DEPARTMENT AND MR. EDGAR MCGOWAN RETURNED MY CALL, AND WHEN HE FOUND OUT I WAS ILL, VERY ILL, HE ASKED ME IF I COULD COME TO THE OFFICE ON A SATURDAY, THAT FOLLOWING SATURDAY, AND MEET WITH HIM. SO MY HUSBAND AND I WENT UP.
Q     BUT THIS WAS ON THE SAME CLAIM, WAS IT NOT?
A     YES.
Q     YOU'D NEVER FILED A CLAIM ON ANYTHING ELSE?
A     AND AT THAT TIME I HAD NOT FILED ANYTHING, BUT WHEN I WENT TO SEE MR. HUFF, MR. EDGAR MCGOWAN SAID TO ME, "IT'S TOO LATE FOR YOU, MS. BAZZLE, BUT I'M GOING TO SEND SOMEONE IN TO CHECK THE COMPANY." THE COMPANY WAS CHECKED, CITED, AND FINED. BUT WHEN I WENT TO SEE MR. HUFF, I DIDN'T GO THERE LOOKING FOR AN ATTORNEY; I HAD MR. FRANK BEATTY.
Q     YES, MA'AM. THAT'S THE POINT I'M GETTING TO. YOU WENT TO SEE MR. HUFF; AND FROM YOUR AFFIDAVIT AND FROM THE DOCUMENTS, YOU WENT AND SAW HIM, I BELIEVE, ON MAY 2, 1983?
A     MONDAY NIGHT.
Q     AND AT THAT TIME, YOU WERE NOT LOOKING FOR AN ATTORNEY, AS YOU SAY, TO REPRESENT YOU ON THIS CLAIM; YOU HAD ALREADY TALKED TO MR. FRANK BEATTY ABOUT THIS CLAIM. IS THAT RIGHT?
A     I HAD ALREADY SIGNED SOME PAPERS.
Q     YOU HAD ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT--
A     RIGHT.
Q     --WITH MR. BEATTY TO REPRESENT YOU.
A     I GAVE Y'ALL COPIES OF IT.
Q     WHILE YOU WERE AT MR. HUFF'S OFFICE, I BELIEVE YOU TOLD ME, AND ALSO IT'S IN YOUR AFFIDAVIT, THAT MR. HUFF--AND WE'RE NOW IN YOUR COMPLAINT NUMBER THREE--THAT MR. HUFF TOLD YOU THAT MR. FRANK BEATTY HAD BEEN CAUGHT DOING CERTAIN THINGS THAT WERE UNETHICAL AND FOR THAT REASON YOU SHOULDN'T LET HIM BE YOUR ATTORNEY. BY SAYING THAT, DID HE CONVINCE YOU TO ALLOW HIM TO BE YOUR ATTORNEY?
A     HE KEPT REPEATING IT.
Q     RIGHT. SO AT SOME POINT DURING THAT MEETING, YOU DECIDED THAT MR. HUFF SHOULD BE YOUR ATTORNEY?
A     HE MADE ME PROMISES, AND HE TOLD ME THAT--
Q     YES, MA'AM, I UNDERSTAND--
A     YES.
Q     --BUT YOU MADE THE DECISION YOU WERE GOING TO EMPLOY HIM AS YOUR ATTORNEY?
A     NOT AT FIRST, NO. I TOLD HIM I HAD AN ATTORNEY.
Q     I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETIME DURING THE COURSE OF THAT MEETING.
A     THAT NIGHT, YEAH. FINALLY, AT THE END.
Q     IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT, DURING THAT MEETING, HE TOLD YOU THAT HE WOULD NOT CHARGE YOU MORE THAN THE ONE-THIRD OF WHATEVER HE--
A     THAT HE COULD NOT CHARGE AND WOULD NOT CHARGE.
Q     --MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF WHAT HE RECOVERED FOR YOU?
A     AND IF HE DIDN'T RECOVER NOTHING, I WOULD OWE HIM NOTHING.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, DID Y'ALL ENTER INTO A WRITTEN REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT?
A     I SIGNED A DOCUMENT THAT NIGHT, AND I WAS TOLD BY HIM HOW TO GET RID OF MR. BEATTY.
Q     THE DOCUMENT YOU SIGNED, DO YOU HAVE IT WITH YOU?
A     YES, SIR.
Q     AND WHICH DOCUMENT IS THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE?
A     RIGHT HERE (INDICATING), IT'S IN--IT'S IN THE BOOK WHERE IT WILL BEGIN ON--
Q     MS. GOODMAN IS GOING TO LOOK AT WHERE IT IS.
A     --ON THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, GOVERNOR, AND THE OFFICE.
Q     LET HER JUST SEE, AND SHE'LL COME FIND IT IN THE OTHER BOOK.
A     THIS IS THE LETTER, AND THIS IS THE CONTRACT I ENTERED INTO WITH MR. HUFF (INDICATING).
Q     MS. BAZZLE, ONCE YOU HAD ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT WITH MR. HUFF, HE BEGAN TO REPRESENT YOU; IS THAT TRUE?
A     I WAS TOLD TO COME BACK LATER, AND I WOULD NEED TO SIGN SOME ADDITIONAL PAPERS, BUT I SIGNED SOME PAPERS THAT NIGHT, WHICH, STUPIDITY, AND THEY WERE NOT DATED, AND I WAS TOLD TO WRITE MR. FRANK BEATTY A LETTER AND SEND IT REGISTERED, WHICH I DID, AND I'VE GOT THE--BECAUSE I SAID THAT I ALREADY HAD A LAWYER AND THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING ME, AND HE TOLD ME THAT I COULD GET RID OF HIM, AND I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD ALREADY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH HIM. AND HE KEPT TELLING ME, YOU KNOW, BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM. AND SO I DATED THE LETTER MAY 3, 1983, TOOK IT TO THE POST OFFICE--
Q     AND YOU MAILED THAT TO MR. BEATTY?
A     --AND MAILED IT TO MR. BEATTY.
Q     AND YOU HAD NO FURTHER CONTACT WITH MR. BEATTY?
A     I WENT TO HIS OFFICE THE SAME DAY THAT HE GOT THE LETTER AND ASKED THE LADY--I DON'T REMEMBER HER NAME--IF I COULD PICK UP THE FILE. IT WAS JUST A SMALL AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTS.
Q     THE NEXT CLAIM I WANT TO GO INTO IS NUMBER ONE ON YOUR AFFIDAVIT. YOU SAY THAT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS MR. HUFF DID, OR ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT HE CAUSED TO DO WAS TO FILL OUT YOUR FORM NUMBER 50; AND IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT HE TOOK A COPY OF A FORM PREVIOUSLY FILED BY A CLAIMANT NAMED BOBBY L. DAVIS, AND COPIED THAT FORM IN ALL RESPECTS EXCEPT AS TO INFORMATION THAT RELATES JUST TO YOU, LIKE YOUR NAME--
A     IT'S IDENTICAL.
Q     --AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS. AND BY DOING THAT, HE DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED CHEMICAL BURNS ON YOUR TOTAL BODY, RATHER THAN JUST TO YOUR LUNGS.
A     (NODS HEAD.)
Q     IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU TOLD MR. HUFF, PRIOR TO HIM FILLING OUT THAT FORM, THE EXTENT OF YOUR INJURIES?
A     HE KNEW, BECAUSE--
Q     HOW DID HE KNOW, MS. BAZZLE?
A     BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT MR. EDGAR MCGOWAN HAD ALREADY MET WITH ME AND MY HUSBAND. WE--
Q     BUT HOW DID HE KNOW THAT, MS. BAZZLE?
A     I TOLD HIM.
Q     OKAY.
A     AND HE KNEW THAT THEY WERE DOING--THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING AN INSPECTION ALSO.
Q     BUT DID HE KNOW THE EXTENT OF YOUR INJURY?
A     YES, HE KNEW WHAT I WAS WORKING WITH.
Q     THAT IT WAS MORE THAN JUST A LUNG BURN?
A     I TOOK THE PICTURES. I HAD PICTURES.
Q     OF--
A     OF THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT, AND ALL. HE KNEW.
Q     BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE INJURY TO YOUR BODY.
A     HE KNEW, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROTECTIVE ITEMS. WE DIDN'T HAVE RUBBER GLOVES. WE DIDN'T HAVE RUBBER APRONS. WE DIDN'T HAVE NOTHING. IT WAS ALMOST LIKE A BACKYARD OPERATION.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, NEXT, TELL THE COMMITTEE BRIEFLY, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE FORM 50 WAS FILED, HOW HAS THAT HURT YOU IN YOUR ABILITY TO GET MEDICAL COVERAGE AND TREATMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE CARRIER. I KNOW YOU'VE HAD TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN, BUT TELL THEM WHY IT MADE A DIFFERENCE.
A     MY INSURANCE CARRIER IS UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY. MY CASE WAS SETTLED IN JULY OF '85, THE 25TH OF '85. THEY CONSTANTLY NEVER LEAVE ME ALONE, BECAUSE EVERY TIME THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY MY BILLS, THEY CALL IT, "WE DON'T OWE IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT DAMAGE TO YOUR LUNGS. WE ARE ONLY LIABLE FOR RESPIRATORY DISEASE AND NOTHING ELSE."
Q     SO AS PART OF YOUR SETTLEMENT IN 1985, WAS THERE CONTINUED TREATMENT OF MATTERS RELATED TO YOUR LUNGS; IS THAT RIGHT?
A     IT WAS--MY INJURY WAS ONLY LISTED AS LUNGS, AND THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER CATCH IN THERE THAT SAYS--
Q     MS. BAZZLE, LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS. I MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT SLOW ON THE UPTAKE. YOU RECEIVED A CASH SETTLEMENT FOR YOUR INJURIES IN EXCESS OF $20,000. IS THAT CORRECT?
A     IN WHAT?
Q     IN EXCESS OF $20,000.
A     I RECEIVED, IN JULY OF '85--I GAVE UP A LITTLE BETTER THAN $20,000. I RECEIVED $63,000, NOT COUNTING WHAT I HAD TO PAY OUT.
Q     SO PART OF WHAT YOUR SETTLEMENT WAS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE CONTINUED MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR--
A     LIFETIME MEDICAL CARE.
Q     SO THE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND USF&G IS OVER THE SCOPE OF THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OWED TO YOU--RIGHT?--AND THE PROBLEM COMES ABOUT BECAUSE YOUR FORM 50 HAS "LUNGS" ON IT.
A     AND THEY HOLD ME TO IT, THAT "WE ARE ONLY LIABLE--" BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO WROTE UP IN MY CONTRACT "--WE ARE ONLY LIABLE FOR YOUR RESPIRATORY DISEASE, AND WE ARE ONLY LIABLE IF, ALSO, DR. MICHAEL S. HAYNES REFERS YOU OR DOCTORS YOU OR SAYS THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IT. IF HE DOESN'T SAY YOU'RE ENTITLED TO IT, WE DON'T OWE IT."
Q     AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL THE MEDICALLY NECESSARY STANDARD, I WOULD IMAGINE, IN TERMS--
A     I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
Q     SOME DOCTOR HAS GOT TO CERTIFY THAT THIS TREATMENT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY?
A     WELL, I MEAN, THAT, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT BEHIND--
Q     AND MS. BAZZLE, I THINK YOUR POINT, IF YOU WANT TO CARRY ON A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, IS THAT THIS DOCTOR WAS NEVER DESIGNATED BY YOU TO BE THE PERSON TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
A     HE WAS NEVER ASKED, PERIOD.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, BUT GETTING BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE FORM WAS FILLED OUT WRONG, AS ALLEGED BY YOU, DO YOU HAVE OR CAN YOU REFER THIS COMMITTEE TO THE FIRST PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE YOU RECEIVED FROM USF&G THAT SAID THAT THIS COVERAGE OR THIS SETTLEMENT DID NOT COVER TREATMENT BEYOND YOUR LUNGS. CAN YOU IDENTIFY IN YOUR RECORDS THE FIRST PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE YOU RECEIVED FROM USF&G THAT SAID THE TREATMENT YOU HAD REQUESTED WAS NOT TO BE PAID FOR BY THEM BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A LUNG OR RESPIRATORY INJURY?
A     MY CASE WAS SETTLED IN JULY OF '85. IMMEDIATELY ON SETTLEMENT OF MY CASE--I DID NOT WANT TO SETTLE MY CASE BECAUSE I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY WANTED TO REALLY SETTLE WITH ME. MR. HUFF KNOWS THAT. MR. HUFF THREATENED ME AND TOLD ME THAT IF I DID NOT SETTLE, THAT HE WOULD PETITION THE COMMISSION--WHICH I DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE COULDN'T, BUT HE TOLD ME HE WOULD PETITION THE COMMISSION--AND WOULD ASK FOR HIS MONEY AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO AND FIND ME ANOTHER LAWYER, WHICH MEANT I WOULD BE PAYING TWO LAWYERS. AND SO--BUT ANYWAY, I SIGNED AN AGREEMENT IN JULY OF '85. MR. HUFF KNOWS, AND I KNOW, AND MY FAMILY KNOWS THAT THEY IMMEDIATELY CUT OFF MY BENEFITS. THE EARLIEST I COULD GET BACK IN WAS IN DECEMBER OF '85.
Q     THAT'S THE QUESTION I'M ASKING. CAN YOU SHOW ME THE DOCUMENTATION WHERE THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU TO RECEIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT?
A     LET ME SEE IF I BROUGHT THAT FILE. YOU'VE GOT IT IN THE OTHER EXHIBIT. THERE'S CLAIMANT'S EXHIBIT 1, CLAIM EXHIBIT 2, CLAIM EXHIBIT 3, AND CLAIMANT EXHIBIT 4 IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, I'LL BE GLAD TO LET YOU FIND THAT LATER.
A     IT'S LETTERS BY DR. MICHAEL S. HAYNES, OR LETTERS BY DR. JOSEPH MARK NICHOLS, AND LETTERS BY DR. THOMAS W. BLANCHARD, AND ALL STATING AND SHOWING HOW IT WAS CONNECTED TO THE RESPIRATORY, BECAUSE--
Q     YES, MA'AM. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CLAIM. I JUST WANT TO FIND THE LETTER FROM USF&G. MS. BAZZLE, LET'S CONTINUE AND YOU CAN FIND THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER, AND WE CAN JUST ENTER IT ON THE RECORD THEN. AFTER THIS FORM WAS WRONGLY FILLED OUT AND YOUR CASE WAS SETTLED, AS YOU SAY, AS YOU ALLEGE, MR. HUFF BADGERED YOU--BY YOUR TESTIMONY--INTO SETTLING THIS MATTER IN 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     HE WANTED IT SETTLED.
Q     SO YOU SIGNED THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER DURESS, BY YOUR TESTIMONY?
A     I WAS TOLD THAT IF I DIDN'T SIGN IT, HE WOULD TAKE IT--BECAUSE WE GOT INTO AN ARGUMENT IN THE LAW OFFICE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY IT WAS, AND I WAS AFRAID OF IT, AND I TOLD HIM THAT I DIDN'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD PAY. HE TOLD ME AND MY HUSBAND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A LEGAL DOCUMENT; THAT IT WOULD BE JUST NOTHING BUT TAKING THE DOCUMENT AND PETITIONING, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, LET'S CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PERIOD THROUGH WHEN YOU WOULD HAVE SETTLED THE CASE AND NOW YOU'RE NEEDING THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND YOU'RE UNABLE TO GET IT; AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF YOUR ALLEGATION, THAT MR. HUFF'S NEGLIGENCE, OR WRONGDOING, OR WHATEVER, RESULTED IN THIS HARM TO YOU. ANOTHER PART OF YOUR CASE IS THAT MR. BEATTY--MR. HUFF TOOK THE CASE AWAY FROM MR. BEATTY. WHEN YOU WERE MEETING WITH MR. HUFF ON MAY 2, 1983, DID YOU EXPRESS ANY RESERVATION ABOUT MR. BEATTY HANDLING YOUR CASE PRIOR TO THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH MR. HUFF?
A     DID I GO BACK AND TALK TO MR. BEATTY?
Q     NO, DID YOU TALK TO MR. HUFF BEFORE HE BROUGHT IT UP WITH YOU, THAT YOU HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH MR. BEATTY REPRESENTING YOU?
A     NO. I JUST, I CALLED BECAUSE--
Q     WHY WERE YOU AT MR. HUFF'S OFFICE THAT EVENING?
A     BECAUSE, THE SUMMER OF 1978--BECAUSE BROOKHAVEN ESTATES, WHERE WE BUILT OUR HOME IN '74 AND WHERE WE LIVE, WAS BEING REAPPRAISED, AND OTHER AREAS WASN'T. I SPOKE OUT--
Q     YOU MEAN FOR PROPERTY TAXES?
A     RIGHT. I SPOKE OUT ON IT, AND THE NEWS MEDIA--DON'T ASK ME WHY--GAVE ME A LOT OF ATTENTION. I WAS ASKED TO SERVE ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE AIKEN COUNTY TAX-PAYERS ASSOCIATION AND THAT IS WHEN I MET MR. HUFF, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT HE WAS FIRST RUNNING FOR OFFICE. I KNEW HE WAS AN ATTORNEY; I KNEW HE WAS IN THE HOUSE; AND I WENT TO HIM, TO FIND OUT WHAT MY RIGHTS WOULD BE THROUGH WORKERS' COMP LAWS.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, SO YOU WENT TO HIM, IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY, AS A PUBLIC SERVANT, AND HE WAS GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT YOUR RIGHTS WERE UNDER A STATE AGENCY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, YOU INDICATE IN YOUR ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO THAT CERTAIN DATES ON PAPERS, DOCUMENTS, AND OTHER ITEMS WERE EITHER CHANGED BY MR. HUFF OR WERE MISDATED AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT. WHICH OF THESE DOCUMENTS, AS DATED BY MR. HUFF, HAS BEEN MOST PREJUDICIAL TO YOU BY THE WAY HE DATED IT? I BELIEVE, IN FACT, I'M TALKING ABOUT A MAY 4, 1991, LETTER. WOULD YOU TELL THE COMMITTEE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE MAY 4, 1991, LETTER?
A     JUST GIVE ME A MINUTE. THIS IS A TEN-YEAR SITUATION, SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
Q     YES, MA'AM. DO YOU HAVE A GLASS OF WATER, OR DO YOU NEED ANYTHING, MS. BAZZLE?
A     I'VE GOT A THERMOS, BUT I REALLY DO NEED A CUP. WHEN HE SENT MY FILE, AND WHEN HE SENT THE PAPERS ON FIRST FILING IT--WHEN HE FIRST SENT MY PAPERS IN--HE TOOK AND CHANGED--WHICH, I DIDN'T PAY A LOT OF ATTENTION TO IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THAT--
Q     WHAT PAPERS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HIM SENDING IN, MS. BAZZLE?
A     IT'S WHERE HE SHOWED THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTING A CLIENT.
Q     BUT I'M TALKING NOW ABOUT A MAY 4, 1991, LETTER, AND I BELIEVE YOU TOLD ME THAT--
A     OH, THAT'S THE EXHIBIT "B" YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     OKAY, THEN. HE CALLED THAT HIS EXHIBIT "B," AND HE CALLED THAT EXHIBIT "B" OF THE MAY 8TH LETTER, WHICH IS NOW MAY 8TH; IT WAS MAY 4TH.
Q     TELL ME WHY THE CHANGE IN THE FOUR-DAY DATES THERE MADE IT--ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE CORRECT, WHAT DIFFERENCE DID IT MAKE TO YOUR POSITION BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR BOARD AT THAT TIME?
A     BECAUSE I HAD JUST MET WITH HIM--AND I WANT TO BE ACCURATE. I HAD JUST MET WITH HIM ON DECEMBER 7TH. I HAD A FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. APPOINTMENT WITH HIM THAT NIGHT. IT WAS A FRIDAY NIGHT--FRIDAY AFTERNOON. I HAD JUST MET WITH HIM ON DECEMBER 4TH, AND I HAD AN APPOINTMENT FOR FOUR O'CLOCK. I DIDN'T GET IN THERE TO SEE HIM UNTIL EVERYBODY ELSE HAD LEFT, INCLUDING HIS SECRETARY.
Q     WELL, MS. BAZZLE, HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE CHANGING OF THE DATE OF THE LETTER, IS WHAT I'M SAYING?
A     BECAUSE THAT WAS WHEN HE FIRST VERBALLY TOLD ME THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY HIM MORE MONEY.
Q     BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE IS IT, THOUGH, BETWEEN MAY 4TH AND MAY 8TH IN TERMS OF DATING THE LETTER? HOW DID THAT IMPACT YOU, THE DATE OF THE LETTER?
A     WELL, THE CHANGING OF THE DATE OF THE LETTER DIDN'T DAMAGE ME, AS FAR AS MY MEDICAL, PER SE, BUT IT DAMAGED MYSELF AND ALSO SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMP IN BEING ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS EXHIBIT "B" BECAUSE HE ILLEGALLY--WHAT I CALL "ILLEGALLY," BECAUSE I WAS NEVER CALLED; I WAS NEVER WROTE; I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED, AND NEITHER DID THE COMMISSION NOTIFY ME--REMOVED HIMSELF FROM MY CASE AND DID A MOTION TO THE COMMISSION AND ASKED THEM TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE CASE, OR PERMISSION TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE CASE, AND CITED THAT I OWED HIM MONEY AND THAT I WAS UNCOOPERATIVE, AND HE DID A MOTION AND HE DID AN AFFIDAVIT. AND IN IT, HE HAD AN EXHIBIT "A" AND EXHIBIT "B." WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OF THIS EXCEPT THAT BACK IN DECEMBER OF 1990 WE HAD BEEN--I HAD BEEN TOLD THAT I WAS LOOKING AT ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT TO TEN MORE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR ELSE HE WOULD NOT REPRESENT ME.
Q     RIGHT.
A     THAT IF I WANTED HIS LEGAL EXPERTISE THAT I WAS LOOKING AT MORE LIKE, CLOSE TO $10,000. IT WAS RAINING THAT NIGHT. YOU CAN CHECK THE WEATHER IN AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, AND I KNOW YOU'LL FIND IT. IT WAS RAINING THAT NIGHT, AND IT WAS COLD, AND FINALLY I HAD GOT ENOUGH OF IT, AND I TOLD HIM, I SAID, "HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY? HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY?" I SAID, "I'VE PAID YOU $21,000. I'VE PAID YOU THE OTHER MONEY THAT YOU'VE ASKED ME FOR, BUT YOU AGREED WHEN YOU TOOK THIS CASE--YOU AGREED WHEN WE WERE SETTLING THIS CASE--THAT YOU COULD NOT AND YOU WOULD NOT EVER CHARGE ME MORE THAN THE LEGAL ONE-THIRD OF THIS CASE. "I PAID YOU FOR THE CASE. I PAID YOU FOR ALL OF THE COSTS OF THE CASE, AND I'VE CONTINUED TO PAY YOU MODERATELY. I DON'T MIND. BUT HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ANOTHER SOMEWHERE FROM FIVE--" HE STARTED OFF AT THREE, THEN WENT TO FIVE, THEN HE WENT TO EIGHT. SO FINALLY I SAID, "YOU KNOW--" BECAUSE HE CALLED ME CAROLYN, AND I CALLED HIM TOM. I SAID, "TOM, WHAT ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT?" HE SAID, "MORE LIKE $10,000." AND WE HAD WORDS OVER IT, AND THAT'S WHEN I ASKED HIM HOW DID HE JUSTIFY, AND HE TOLD ME THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY MY CASE BEING APPEALED TO THE FULL COMMISSION AND TO CIRCUIT COURT, AND IF I WANTED HIS HELP THAT I HAD BETTER GO HOME AND THINK ABOUT IT.
Q     ALL RIGHT.
A     I TOLD HIM THAT I COULD NOT PAY HIM THAT KIND OF MONEY BECAUSE IF I GAVE HIM AN ADDITIONAL TEN MORE THOUSAND DOLLARS, IT WOULD HAVE ONLY LEFT ME WITH ABOUT $10,000 OF MY CASE, FOR LIFETIME MEDICAL. I'M 49.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, CONTINUING ON WITH YOUR COMPLAINT--
A     BUT ON THAT PAPER THAT YOU WAS TALKING ABOUT, EXHIBIT "B," HE WOULDN'T SUBMIT IT. HE SUBMITTED THIS AND IT'S DATED--HE GOT IT CERTIFIED UP HERE SOMEWHERE IN COLUMBIA, BECAUSE I TRIED TO TRACE IT DOWN. HE GOT IT CERTIFIED. HE TOOK IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER VIRGINIA CROCKER TOOK IT. SHE KNOWED ME. SHE KNOWED MY CASE. SHE SIGNED MY SETTLEMENT CONTRACT. I HAD TO GO BEFORE HER IN '87 BECAUSE I NEEDED ADDITIONAL BENEFITS, BECAUSE I HAD--
Q     MS. BAZZLE, GET TO THE POINT.
A     OKAY. SO I HAD TWO MAJOR OPERATIONS. SHE KNEW ME. SHE SIGNED THE MOTION AND REMOVED MY LAWYER FROM ME WITHOUT NOTIFYING ME, AND THERE WAS NO EXHIBIT "B." NOW, THIS WAS SIGNED MAY 20TH OF 1991. IT TOOK FROM MAY 20, 1991--NOT ME, BECAUSE I COULDN'T TOUCH HIM, BUT IT TOOK FROM THERE UNTIL JULY 19TH FOR HIM TO FINALLY, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION--AND THAT WAS WHEN THE JUDICIAL DIRECTOR, MR. HERMAN B. LIGHTSEY, CALLING; THAT WAS--
Q     GO AHEAD.
A     --WITH THE CLAIMS DIRECTOR, MS. KAY B. SHEALY CALLING AND WRITING, AND THEN HAD TO FOLLOW UP WITH MORE PHONE CALLS, TO PLEASE SEND EXHIBIT "B"; IT WASN'T IN THE FILE. I GOT LETTERS TO THAT.
Q     ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT PART, MS. BAZZLE. MOVING ON TO YOUR OTHER COMPLAINT.
MR. COUICK: AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH YOUR PERMISSION--
A     CAN I GO BACK FOR JUST A SECOND ON THAT?
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT EXHIBIT "B" WAS THAT IT WAS--IT TURNED OUT TO BE MY LETTER. WHAT HE DID TO THE LETTER WAS, WAS, WHEN HE FAXED IT--HE HELD THE LETTER BECAUSE THE LETTER WAS DANGEROUS TO HIM, BECAUSE I LAID OUT IN THE LETTER ALL OF MY HEARINGS AND ALL OF THE MONEY THAT HAD BEEN SPENT OUT OF THE $63,000 TO ME.
Q     RIGHT.
A     AND WHEN HE GOT TO CERTAIN PAGES--OH, HERE IT IS (INDICATING). WHEN HE GOT--HERE HE FAXED IT AT 11:53 ON 7/19/1991. IT SAYS TOM HUFF AND JIM HUFF, ATTORNEYS.
Q     RIGHT.
A     BUT WHEN HE GOT OVER TO PAGE SIX AND SEVEN--OVER TO FIVE AND SIX, RATHER--THE LETTER WAS AN EIGHT-PAGE LETTER, BUT WHEN HE GOT OVER--HE FAXED IT NORMAL IN EVERY WAY UP TO PAGE FOUR. WHEN HE GOT OVER TO PAGE FIVE, HE TOOK TWO OF THE SHEETS AND REDUCED IT DOWN TO GET ON AN 81/2 BY 11, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE DEMANDS THAT HE WAS PUTTING ON ME. IT WAS "EITHER GIVE ME THE MONEY OR I WILL NOT WORK THIS CASE."
Q     BUT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION.
A     FINALLY IN JULY.
Q     YES, MA'AM. MS. BAZZLE, LET'S DO MOVE ON.
A     BUT THAT WAS AFTER THE FACT.
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     I DIDN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
Q     YES, MA'AM. MS. BAZZLE, MOVING ON TO YOUR COMPLAINT NUMBER FOUR--
MR. COUICK: AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS GETTING READY TO MAKE THE REQUEST TO MR. HUFF--MR. HUFF, HAVE YOUR BROTHERS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE GRAVAMEN OF HER COMPLAINT AS IT RELATES TO THEM? DO THEY HAVE ANY DESIRE TO BE PRESENT AND HEAR THIS?
MR. HUFF: NO, I HAVEN'T--QUITE FRANKLY, I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE GOING ON HERE WITH THEM, OTHER THAN THEY WERE AWARE SHE HAD FILED A COMPLAINT.
WITNESS: I NEVER FILED A COMPLAINT, YOUR HONOR. I--
MR. COUICK: MS. BAZZLE.
WITNESS: --FILED MOTIONS FOR HEARINGS AND THAT'S ALL.
MR. COUICK: THIS IS THE COMPLAINT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, MS. BAZZLE.
WITNESS: OKAY.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, TAKING ONE OF THE HUFF BROTHERS AT A TIME, MR. ROS HUFF. YOU INDICATE THAT MR. ROS HUFF WAS EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND, WHICH IS A STATE AGENCY. IT WAS YOUR--IT WAS YOUR CONVERSATION WITH ME THE OTHER EVENING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF MR. TOM HUFF'S REPRESENTATION OF YOU, THAT MR. ROS HUFF WAS INVOLVED IN A THREE-PARTY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION TRYING TO HELP YOU AND MR. HUFF SETTLE YOUR CASE; AND THAT YOUR HUSBAND, WHILE PRESENT, WAS NOT ON THE PHONE, AND YOUR HUSBAND ONLY HEARD YOUR END OF THE CONVERSATION; THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHO THE BROTHER WAS AT THE TIME, AND YOU WERE NOT AWARE IF HE WAS A STATE EMPLOYEE OR NOT, NOR EMPLOYED BY THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND?
A     YEAH, AND I KNEW HE WORKED FOR THE COMMISSION, BECAUSE THE NIGHT HE ASKED ME FOR MY CASE ON MAY 2, 1983, HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD A BROTHER THAT WORKED FOR THE COMMISSION, AND DUMMY ME THOUGHT THE COMMISSION WAS THE COMMISSION AND WE ONLY HAD ONE COMMISSION.
Q     RIGHT.
A     SO LATER IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE'S TWO COMMISSIONS. THERE'S THE COMMISSION THAT I MET, WHICH IS DOWN ON MARION STREET, AND THERE'S ONE OVER CLOSE TO DUTCH SQUARE MALL. AND HE TOLD ME THAT MR. ROS--HE TOLD ME HIS BROTHER--HE NEVER TOLD ME HIS BROTHER'S NAME, THOUGH. HE TOLD ME HE HAD A BROTHER THAT WORKED AT THE COMMISSION, AND HIS BROTHER AND HE WOULD BE WORKING THE CASE.
Q     SO AT THE TIME THAT YOU TALKED TO MR. ROS HUFF ON THIS ALLEGED THREE-PARTY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, DID YOU KNOW OR DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT MR. ROS HUFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND?
A     I DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE WORKERS' COMP FUND. I KNEW HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMMISSION, IS ALL THAT I KNOWED.
Q     DID YOU EVER PHYSICALLY MEET WITH MR. ROS HUFF PRESENT, TO DISCUSS YOUR CLAIM?
A     ONLY OVER THE TELEPHONE.
Q     DID ANYONE EVER OVERHEAR A CONVERSATION--BOTH ENDS OF THE CONVERSATION--BETWEEN YOU AND MR. ROS HUFF AND/OR MR. ROS HUFF AND MR. TOM HUFF?
A     NO, SIR. IT WAS A THREE-WAY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION. MR. HUFF CALLED MY HOUSE AND TOLD ME HE WOULD LIKE TO PUT HIS BROTHER ON, BECAUSE HE WANTED ME TO GIVE UP THE LIFETIME MEDICAL AND TO GO FOR MORE OF THE--IT WAS EIGHTY-THREE THOUSAND AND LIKE THREE HUNDRED, OR THREE HUNDRED AND SOME DOLLARS, OR WHATEVER. IT WASN'T THE MONEY I WAS INTERESTED IN. I WAS VERY ILL. I WANTED THE MEDICAL.
Q     WHAT WAS MR. ROS HUFF'S ADVICE TO YOU THAT DAY ON THAT TELEPHONE CALL?
A     HE DIDN'T TAKE AS ASSERTIVE A POSITION AS WHAT MR. TOM HUFF DID. MR. TOM HUFF KNEW--HE KNEW I WAS ILL AND HE KNEW THAT I WAS IN THE PROCESS--WHICH, I DIDN'T AT FIRST, BUT HAD APPLIED FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE THIS MESS WAS NEVER GOING TO END.
Q     WHAT DID MR. ROS HUFF TELL YOU TO DO?
A     WELL, THEY DISCUSSED IT WITH ME, YOU KNOW. THEY ASKED ME WOULD I LISTEN, AND SO IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH ME THAT I NEEDED TO CONSIDER GIVING UP THE LIFETIME MEDICAL, BECAUSE IF I WOULD GIVE UP THE LIFETIME MEDICAL, USF&G WOULD POSSIBLY OFFER ME THE $83,000.
Q     SO MR. ROS HUFF WAS GIVING YOU LEGAL ADVICE--
A     YEAH.
Q     --AS TO THE SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CLAIM.
A     AND SO FINALLY--YOU KNOW, I HAD ALREADY TOLD MR. HUFF, TOM HUFF, PREVIOUSLY, THAT--HE KNEW THIS. THIS CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN JUNE. HE KNEW--HE KNEW THAT I NEVER HAD ANY INTENTIONS OF EVER GIVING UP MY LIFETIME MEDICAL, BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY WENT TO DUKE HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENTS.
Q     YES, MA'AM. MS. BAZZLE, DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. ROS HUFF?
A     MANY TIMES, AT MY DOINGS, AFTER THAT THREE-WAY CONVERSATION BECAUSE--
Q     THIS WAS AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CASE?
A     YES.
Q     SO PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CASE, THIS WAS THE ONLY CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH MR. ROS HUFF?
A     THAT WAS THE FIRST. THAT'S WHEN I FOUND--
Q     THAT WAS THE ONLY--
A     THAT'S WHEN I FOUND OUT WHAT HIS NAME WAS, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HE WORKED.
Q     BUT DID YOU TALK TO HIM AGAIN TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE YOU SETTLED YOUR CASE?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     DID YOU TALK TO HIM ANY OTHER TIME TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE?
A     MANY TIMES.
Q     AND WHEN WERE THOSE OCCASIONS?
A     WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S GO BACK TO BEFORE MY CASE WAS SETTLED, BECAUSE MR. TOM HUFF TOLD ME THAT HE WAS PAYING HIS BROTHER OUT OF THE $21,000 FOR HELPING HIM TO DO THE PAPERS.
Q     OKAY.
A     THEN I HAD TWO MAJOR OPERATIONS IN 1987.
Q     WHEN DID YOU TALK TO MR. ROS HUFF AGAIN, MS. BAZZLE?
A     IN '87.
Q     AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE ADVICE HE GAVE YOU THERE?
A     HE FIRST ASKED ME WHY WASN'T TOM HELPING ME, AND I TOLD HIM THAT--
Q     WHAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE DID YOU ASK FROM MR. HUFF?
A     I WENT BACK TO MR. TOM HUFF AND TOLD HIM THAT I NEEDED HELP, AND THAT USF&G WAS NOT PAYING MY MEDICAL--
Q     SO THEN, YOU WENT TO MR. ROS--
A     --AND I NEEDED ADDITIONAL HELP. AND TOM TOLD ME--WELL, HE TOLD ME WHEN WE HAD THE DECEMBER--DECEMBER 1985--HEARING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE SETTLEMENT OF MY CASE, WE WERE AT THE COUNTY COMPLEX BUILDING AND HE TOLD ME VERY TO THE POINT THAT IF I WANTED HIS HELP IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD HAVE TO PAY HIM.
Q     WELL, WHY DID YOU CALL MR. ROS HUFF?
A     BECAUSE I FIRST CONTACTED TOM AND TOM WAS--
Q     I UNDERSTAND. SO YOU CONTACTED MR. ROS HUFF FOR LEGAL ADVICE?
A     NO, I FIRST CONTACTED MR. TOM HUFF. MR. TOM HUFF WAS GOING TO CHARGE ME.
Q     RIGHT. AFTER YOU TALKED TO MR. TOM HUFF AND HE WAS ALLEGEDLY NON-RESPONSIVE, YOU THEN CONTACTED MR. ROS HUFF?
A     RIGHT.
Q     AND YOU ASKED HIM FOR LEGAL ADVICE. DID HE PROVIDE YOU WITH LEGAL ADVICE?
A     YES.
Q     AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT LEGAL ADVICE?
A     HE TOLD ME THAT I COULD HANDLE IT, THAT I COULD GO AND REPRESENT MYSELF, AND HE SAID, "YOU CAN USE THE A.P.A. ACT." AND, I MEAN, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS, AND SO HE SAID THAT IT'S CALLED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT.
Q     YOU ALSO MENTIONED YOU TALKED WITH MR. ROS HUFF ON OTHER OCCASIONS SINCE THE SETTLEMENT.
A     RIGHT.
Q     WHAT OTHER LEGAL ADVICE HAS MR. ROS HUFF GIVEN YOU?
A     HE TOLD ME HOW TO GO TO THE HEARING BEFORE COMMISSIONER VIRGINIA CROCKER, AND THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO WIN IT BECAUSE OF MY CONTRACT, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM.
Q     AND THE HEARING WAS ON WHETHER YOUR CONDITION WAS COVERED FOR MEDICAL EXPENSE OR NOT?
A     AT THAT TIME--IT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. AT THAT TIME, I HAD JUST HAD TWO OPERATIONS, AND I WAS NEEDING TEMPORARY--NOT PERMANENT, AND THIS GOT ALL SCREWED UP TOO. I WAS ONLY ASKING FOR SOME TEMPORARY HELP IN MY HOME UNTIL I COULD GET BACK ON MY FEET. INSTEAD, IT ENDED UP THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAD RATHER GIVE ME TWO AIR-PURIFICATION MACHINES, RATHER THAN GIVE ME SOME TEMPORARY HELP. AND THE OTHER THING THAT I NEEDED WAS BECAUSE MY IMMUNE SYSTEM IS DAMAGED, IS THAT I HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL DIET.
Q     RIGHT. MS. BAZZLE, DID YOU EVER PAY MR. ROS HUFF ANY MONEY DIRECTLY?
A     NO, SIR. BUT I CALLED HIM ON--AND THE TELEPHONE BILL, I GAVE YOU.
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     --APRIL 8TH AT 4:04 P.M. TO COLUMBIA. THE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 737--
Q     YES, MA'AM. WHAT YEAR WAS THAT?
A     1987. IMMEDIATELY AFTER LEAVING THE COURTHOUSE AND COMMISSIONER VIRGINIA CROCKER BURNED MY BEHIND.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, FINALLY IN THE AREA OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU MENTION MR. JIM HUFF. HE REPRESENTED MR. ERGLE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A     YES.
Q     AND MR. ERGLE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PHARMACY THERE IN AIKEN.
A     WOODRUFF'S, WHICH IS PART OF AIKEN DRUG.
Q     AND HE WAS IMPLICATED, TO SOME DEGREE, IN IMPROPER MANAGEMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS?
A     RECORD-KEEPING.
Q     YES, MA'AM. AND YOUR FILES HAD BEEN PULLED IN, AS I SAY, A RANDOM SELECTION FROM THAT PHARMACY TO SEE IF THERE WAS PROPER MANAGEMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS.
A     IF IT WAS IMPROPER, YEAH.
Q     DID ANYONE EVER ACCUSE YOU OF DRUG ABUSE OR DRUG MISUSE?
A     NO, THEY QUESTIONED ONE OF THEM--BUT IT WAS BECAUSE THE COMPUTER WENT DOWN--BUT I CLEARED THAT UP.
Q     SO WHEN YOU REFER TO YOUR NAME BEING IN THE RECORDS OF THIS INVESTIGATION, AND AT THE TRIALS LATER AND THE HEARINGS LATER--
A     IT SLANDERED ME.
Q     RIGHT. BUT THE SLANDER WAS WHAT? WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE SLANDER?
A     IT WAS USED TO MAKE THE COMMISSIONERS--THE COMMISSIONERS--
Q     WHICH COMMISSIONERS?
A     --TO VIEW ME AS BEING A BAD PERSON.
Q     WHICH COMMISSIONERS?
A     THE SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMP COMMISSIONERS ON MARION STREET.
Q     AND WHO USED THAT? WHO USED YOUR NAME, MR. HUFF?
A     MR. HUFF DIDN'T--EVEN AT MY HEARING ON OCTOBER 25TH OF 1990, WHEN THERE WAS OVER $25,000 OWING, AND WHEN MR. HAROLD TRASK--
Q     NO, NO, TELL ME, MS. BAZZLE, NOW, YOU MENTIONED BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION THAT YOUR NAME WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE RECORD SEARCH--
A     RIGHT.
Q     --AND THAT THEY HAD INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR PRESCRIPTIONS, THAT YOUR NAME WAS SLANDERED. TELL ME HOW THEY USED THAT DRUG PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION TO SLANDER YOU.
A     THEY SAID THAT I USED IT AND I CHARGED THEM FOR SICK TRAVEL IN GOING THERE, AND ALSO I WAS USING A DRUGSTORE THAT HAD QUESTION MARKS ABOUT HOW THEY WERE DOING THEIR BUSINESS. AND THEY HAVE BADGERED ME OVER AND OVER TO USE SOME KIND OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY--BEFORE THIS EVEN HAPPENED--FROM FLORIDA, WHICH IS LIKE PMSI, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND I CAN'T, BECAUSE I'M A DRUG ALLERGIST PATIENT.
Q     YES, MA'AM, I UNDERSTAND. AND MOVING ON, MS. BAZZLE, AT THE END OF OUR PERSONAL INTERVIEW LAST WEEK, I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD ANY COMPLAINTS THAT WERE NOT CONTAINED, YOU THOUGHT, IN THE FOUR ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU HAD THAT I'VE JUST GONE THROUGH. YOU TOLD ME THAT THESE WERE THE ONES: THAT TOM HUFF NEVER BROUGHT ANY FILES TO COURT, YOU HAD TO USE YOUR FILES, MUCH LIKE THE ONES YOU BROUGHT TODAY.
A     I BROUGHT MY FILES.
Q     TOM HUFF NEVER DID ANY PAPERWORK.
A     HE DID DO SOME, BUT HE DID NOT DO IT-- HE WOULD WAIT UNTIL THE LAST FILING AND SOME OF THE TIMES I KNOW FOR A FACT HE BACKDATED THE DATES TO GET MY PAPERS IN TIME.
Q     YOU SAID TOM NEVER CAME ON TIME, YOU ALWAYS HAD TO WAIT ON HIM.
A     THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS HAD TO CALL HIM, THAT WE WERE THERE WAITING ON HIM.
Q     YOU SAID SOMEONE--AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS HIM OR ONE OF HIS AGENTS--HAVE TAKEN MEDICAL INFORMATION FROM YOU AND EITHER STOLEN IT OR APPROPRIATED IT.
A     AT THE OCTOBER 25TH HEARING THAT LASTED A LONG TIME, WHEN I GOT UP TO GO USE THE REST ROOM--WE TOOK A BREAK--WHEN I CAME BACK, THE MEDICAL THAT I HAD TO TESTIFY OFF OF WAS GONE. WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR ME TO TESTIFY, YOU KNOW, I STOOD UP AND ASKED FOR THE MEDICAL, AND BASICALLY I BEGGED FOR THE MEDICAL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY THAT I COULD TESTIFY WITHOUT THE MEDICAL.
Q     RIGHT.
A     AND COMMISSIONER THOMAS MARCHANT TOLD ME THAT I COULD WORK OUT OF THE STACK ON THE TABLE--WELL, I MEAN, THE STACK ON THE TABLE WAS A MESS, I MEAN, BECAUSE--BECAUSE MR. HAROLD TRASK WAS RUNNING THE COMMISSION HEARING THAT DAY, NOT MR. MARCHANT, COMMISSIONER MARCHANT, AND MY LAWYER, MR. HUFF, WAS NOT DOING ONE THING TO STOP HIM IN HOW HE WAS DAMAGING ME.
Q     YES, MA'AM. AND MS. BAZZLE, MOVING ON A LITTLE BIT NOW, GOING THROUGH YOUR FOUR BASIC AREAS OF COMPLAINT, I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE OF YOU, SO THE COMMITTEE CAN KNOW, WHETHER YOU FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH A GRIEVANCE PANEL, WHETHER YOU FILED ANY TYPE OF APPEAL WITH THE COMMISSION TRYING TO--LIKE, FOR AN EXAMPLE--GET MONIES BACK. LET'S GO THROUGH AND TALK ABOUT THE FORMAL DISPOSITION OF ANY OF YOUR COMPLAINTS THAT YOU'VE MADE.
ON THE ISSUE OF MR. HUFF CHARGING YOU EXCESS FEES--
A     CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PAPERS THAT WAS TOOK? THEY SHOWED UP AS EXHIBITS IN MY CASE.
Q     OKAY.
A     THE PAPERS THAT WERE STOLEN, THAT I COULD NOT TESTIFY OFF. AND THEY WROTE OUT--BY WHAT THE MONEY WAS OWING, SOMEBODY WROTE WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO, THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WRONG WITH ME. I DON'T HAVE A BACK DISEASE. I HAVE OSTEOPOROSIS, BECAUSE OF THE CHEMICALS.
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     AND THEY'VE GOT UROLOGIST AS MY COLON AND BOWEL DOCTOR, AND EVERYTHING JUST TOTALLY SCREWED UP. MR. HUFF PROBABLY BROUGHT ONE PIECE OF PAPER. THAT'S ALL HE FILLED OUT--
Q     YES, MA'AM, I UNDERSTAND.
A     --BESIDES THE OTHER.
Q     LET'S NOW GO THROUGH ABOUT HOW THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION HAS TREATED EACH OF YOUR APPEALS, OR EXCEPTIONS TO FEES CHARGED OR WHATEVER. AS TO FEES CHARGED BY MR. HUFF PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 2, 1990, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION HAS SAID THEY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ADJUST ANY FEES PRIOR TO THAT DATE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     RESTATE THAT.
Q     YOU'RE BEGINNING TO SOUND LIKE A LAWYER.
A     I DON'T--I DIDN'T FOLLOW YOU.
Q     OKAY. THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, IN ITS ORDER OF MARCH 29, 1993, REAFFIRMED THAT YOUR EXCEPTION AS TO ANY FEES CHARGED YOU PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 2, 1990, THEY HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     THAT IS CORRECT IN THEIR ORDER, BUT I HAVE A LETTER FROM MR. MICHAEL LEFEVER THAT STATES THAT--ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE LETTER, WHICH IS DATED OCTOBER 17, 1991, IT SAYS, "IN YOUR LETTER, YOU WANTED TO KNOW WHEN THE COMMISSION BEGAN TO REQUIRE THAT ATTORNEYS GET APPROVAL OF THEIR ATTORNEY FEES. WHILE THE COMMISSION HAS REQUIRED THE APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS FEES IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASES FOR MANY YEARS, THE MORE COMPLETE AND FORMAL PROCESS STARTED ON AUGUST 22, 1984. "IN A LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BAR DATED AUGUST 24, 1984, CHAIRMAN JAMES J. REID PLACED ALL ATTORNEYS ON NOTICE THAT THEY MUST RECEIVE THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO DISBURSEMENT OF ALL FEES AND EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM. SUCH APPROVAL WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY CLAIM INVOLVING AN ATTORNEY WAS CLOSED.
Q     LET ME READ TO YOU, MS. BAZZLE. THIS IS THE ORDER SIGNED BY MR. HUNDLEY. "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT, BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THIS COMMISSION IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO AFFECT THE PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNSEL AND CLAIMANT FOR FEES AND COSTS WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 2, 1990; THEREFORE, WE FIND NO ERROR COMMITTED BY COUNSEL IN THE RECEIPT OF COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, AND FOR FOUR HUNDRED FIFTEEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS, AND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/HUNDRED DOLLARS, FOR APPEARANCES AND SUPPLEMENTARY HEARINGS." WHAT OTHER FEES DID MR. HUFF CHARGE YOU, OTHER THAN WHAT I HAVE JUST READ OUT, THAT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE COMMISSION?
A     I WASN'T ASKING FOR THE $100 FEE BACK. THAT WAS THE FILING FEE.
Q     BUT--
A     I--BUT THE OTHER MONEY THAT WAS CHARGED--ACCORDING TO COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CLYBURN'S ORDER, WHICH IS DATED DECEMBER 20, 1991, COMMISSIONER CLYBURN WROTE IN HIS ORDER THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL MONEY LEFT IN THE CASE--IN MY CASE--BEYOND THE $21,000 TO ENFORCE THE ORDERS OF THE CASE. AND HE ALSO RULED THAT MR HUFF MUST REPAY BACK TO THE CLAIMANT, CAROLYN ANDERSON BAZZLE, $550 WITHIN 30 DAYS. NOW, I APPEALED IT, AND IT WAS HELD ON ABEYANCE. MR. HUFF DID NOT APPEAL IT, AND SO MR. HUFF DID PAY BACK THE MONEY.
Q     THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING READY TO ASK YOU. YOU HAVE BEEN PAID BACK THE MONEY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION.
A     BY THAT ORDER.
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     THE OTHER IS ON APPEAL IN CIRCUIT COURT. I PUT IT IN CIRCUIT COURT.
Q     BUT THE ORDER I JUST READ OUT FROM MR. HUFF--I MEAN FROM MR. HUNDLEY--
A     RIGHT, IT IS IN CIRCUIT COURT.
Q     BUT TO THE EXTENT YOU'VE MADE APPEALS TO THOSE BODIES, THEY'RE EITHER PENDING OR THEY HAVE BEEN RESOLVED AS IT RELATES TO FEES, RIGHT? THERE ARE NO OTHER ISSUES OUT THERE THAT YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION AS IT RELATES TO FEES.
A     NO, SIR. THAT WILL COMPLETE IT, BECAUSE THE THING--ONE OF THE REASONS FOR PUTTING IT IN CIRCUIT COURT IS BECAUSE I WAS TOLD THAT, WITH ME HAVING TO DIG MYSELF THROUGH THIS FILE AND BE MY OWN ATTORNEY--BECAUSE I CANNOT HIRE ANOTHER ATTORNEY BECAUSE THERE'S NO MORE MONEY IN THIS CASE, AND YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME LEGAL MONEY IN THE CASE TO HIRE ANOTHER ATTORNEY; AND I CANNOT HIRE ANOTHER ATTORNEY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET PAID, SO THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK SOMETHING WHERE THERE'S NO MONEY. BUT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THIS CASE IS APPEALED INTO CIRCUIT COURT IS BECAUSE, AT NO TIME HAS THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE EVER REALLY BEEN HEARD. ONLY THEY HAVE--THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ONLY WANTED TO HEAR THE MONEY PART.
Q     MS. BAZZLE, LET'S MOVE ON, AND MOVE ON TO YOUR CLAIM THAT THE USE OF THE BOBBY L. DAVIS FORM WAS WRONG OR NEGLIGENT ON THE PART OF MR. HUFF. I READ FROM THIS SAME ORDER OF MARCH 29, 1993, ORDER OF MR. HUNDLEY, THAT "THE REVIEW OF AND/OR USAGE OF A FORM 50 PREPARED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN A CASE SIMILAR IN ISSUES AND FACTUAL BASIS TO THIS CASE BY THE CLAIMANT'S ATTORNEY IS HARMLESS ERROR, AS IS THE PROVIDING OF A COPY OF THE SAME TO THE CLAIMANT AND/OR INCLUSION OF SAME IN THE FILING OF THE CLAIM WITH THIS COMMISSION." HAVE YOU APPEALED THAT FINDING TO CIRCUIT COURT?
A     THAT WAS SIGNED BY MR. HUNDLEY?
Q     YES, MA'AM.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     YOU'VE APPEALED THIS COMPLETE ORDER?
A     YES, SIR. I APPEALED IT ON THE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND THE ISSUES, BECAUSE THE ISSUES HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED, AND THE REASON THEY DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES IS BECAUSE WORKERS' COMP IS GUILTY OF NOT SCREENING MR. HUFF AND DISCIPLINING MR. HUFF, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE LAWS OR THE AUTHORITY OR THE RIGHTS--OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT--TO--
Q     MS. BAZZLE, HAVE YOU FILED A GRIEVANCE AGAINST MR. ROS HUFF?
A     I HAVEN'T FILED A GRIEVANCE AGAINST ANYONE EXCEPT HERE TODAY.
Q     I'M TALKING ABOUT WITH THE GRIEVANCE COMMISSION?
A     NO, SIR.
Q     HAVE YOU FILED A GRIEVANCE AGAINST MR. JAMES HUFF?
A     NO.
Q     FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT?
A     AT THE PRESENT TIME, I HAVE NOT FILED ANY GRIEVANCE EXCEPT TO COME HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
WITNESS: THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S STILL IN--
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ALL MEMBERS ARE RESERVING THEIR RIGHT TO RECALL.
MR. COUICK: MS. BAZZLE, THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
WITNESS: CAN I MENTION SOMETHING BEFORE I LEAVE THE TABLE?
MR. COUICK: MS. BAZZLE, WHAT'S THE GENERAL--YOU WANTED ME TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. I'LL BE GLAD TO ASK IT.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ASK FOR THE POSSIBILITY TO ASK A QUESTION UNRELATED TO HER COMPLAINT. MS. BAZZLE ATTEMPTED TO COMMENT THIS MORNING ON THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS APPEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. SHE SAYS THAT SHE HAS DOCUMENTATION THAT SOMEONE PERJURED HIMSELF BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. SINCE IT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT IS DIRECTLY BEFORE US IN THIS COMPLAINT, I WOULD ASK THE COMMITTEE'S INDULGENCE THAT SHE COULD FILE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE COMMITTEE'S COUNSEL AND COMMITTEE'S COUNSEL COULD REVIEW IT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS COMPLETE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WITHOUT OBJECTION? SO ORDERED.
MR. COUICK: MS. BAZZLE, IF YOU WILL, JUST BRING ME THAT DOCUMENTATION.
WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION. IT WAS BETWEEN THE TWO LAWYERS, AND IT WAS THE LAST NAME OF--
MR. COUICK: MS. BAZZLE, IF YOU'LL JUST BRING ME THE INFORMATION, YOU'LL JUST NEED TO CALL ME.
WITNESS: OKAY.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'RE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO RECALL MS. BAZZLE?
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YES. ALL MEMBERS RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RECALL MS. BAZZLE.
WITNESS: WHAT--
MR. COUICK: WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.
MR. COUICK: I THINK WHAT THE SENATOR IS TRYING TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE, IF WE HEAR SOMETHING ELSE FROM MR. HUFF THAT WE NEED AN ANSWER TO, THAT WE CAN GET BACK WITH YOU. HE'S JUST LEAVING THE RECORD OPEN. MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE TAKE--
WITNESS: YOU MEAN LIKE RIGHT NOW?
MR. COUICK: --A THREE- OR FOUR-MINUTE BREAK? (TO MS. BAZZLE) NO. (TO CHAIRMAN McCONNELL) MAYBE A THREE- OR FOUR-MINUTE BREAK, SO MS. BAZZLE CAN COLLECT HER THINGS.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: HOW ABOUT FIVE MINUTES? HOUSE TIME.

(WITNESS STANDS ASIDE; 4:35 P.M.)
(RECESS FROM 4:35 P.M. TO 4:45 P.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE READY TO RECONVENE AT THIS POINT. REPRESENTATIVE HUFF, TAKE THE STAND, AND YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH.

(WITNESS RECALLED; 4:45 P.M.)

WHEREUPON, THOMAS E. HUFF, BEING PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I REALIZE MR. HUFF PROBABLY HAS A LOT ON HIS MIND THAT HE'D LIKE TO SAY. IN THE HOPES OF MAYBE ANSWERING SOME OF MY QUESTIONS AND MAYBE SOME OF THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS, IF I COULD GO THROUGH JUST AND ASK A FEW BASIC QUESTIONS AND GET HIS REACTION, AND MAKE SURE THE FACTS ARE STRAIGHT; AND THEN MAYBE WE'LL MOVE ON TO OTHER ISSUES, AND LEAVE THE BAZZLE COMPLAINT UNTIL LAST.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. HUFF, YOU'VE HEARD MS. BAZZLE, AND YOU HEARD MY CHARACTERIZATION THAT SHE HAD FOUR BASIC COMPLAINTS. I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE COMPLAINTS ONE BY ONE. WHAT I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO DO IS JUST ADDRESS THE TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD OF THE BASIC FACTUAL ALLEGATION; AND, I GUESS, AS IMPORTANT TO ME AS WHETHER THEY'RE TRUE OR FALSE, IS WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN HANDLED IN SOME OTHER FORUM, IN TERMS OF WHETHER SOME COMMISSION, GRIEVANCE PANEL--TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN DISCUSS IT--OR WHATEVER, HAS EITHER HANDLED THE MATTER OR HAS THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF MS. BAZZLE'S COMPLAINT?
A     I DO.
Q     IT'S ON PAGE, I THINK, THREE OR FOUR THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH NUMBER ONE AS SHE HAS LABELED IT, WHICH IS, AS SHE CALLS IT, THE MISFILING OF THE FORM NUMBER 50.
A     WHAT NUMBER IS THAT, MR. COUICK?
Q     NUMBER ONE. SHE HAS TWO SETS OF NUMBERS. SHE HAS ONE THROUGH 22 ARE WITNESSES, AND THEN SHE'S GOT ONE THROUGH FOUR.
A     OH, OKAY, I'M WITH YOU.
Q     SHE'S GOT THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, AND THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY THAT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A COPY OF THE CLAIM OF BOBBY L. DAVIS' AND THE INJURY WAS LABELED AS "LUNG" WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TOTAL BODY BURN. COULD YOU TELL THE COMMITTEE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, WHETHER MS. BAZZLE'S ALLEGATION IS TRUE OR NOT, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU USED THE BOBBY L. DAVIS FORM AS A MODEL?
A     IT WAS. I USED IT AS A MODEL, WHICH IS NOT UNUSUAL. IN FURTHER EXPLANATION TO THAT, MS. BAZZLE DID NOT HAVE A BODY BURN. HER PRIMARY DAMAGE--HER ONLY DAMAGE--WAS TO HER LUNGS. SHE WAS INVOLVED IN A BRAZING PROCESS THAT REQUIRED THE DIPPING OF CERTAIN METALS, WITH THE ENERGY THEN CHARGED THROUGH. THE CHEMICALS USED IN THAT PARTICULAR PROCESS WAS CADMIUM AND BERYLLIUM. I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THAT PROCESS. THE FUMES GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THAT PROCESS ADHERE TO LUNG TISSUE, AND THEY ARE CARCINOGENIC. IN MY INVESTIGATION OF THE PLACE WHERE SHE WORKED, I FOUND NUMEROUS OSHA VIOLATIONS--AND QUITE FRANKLY, AS A LAWYER, WHEN YOU TRY TO LEVERAGE A CASE, WHEN YOU TRY TO GET SOMETHING ON SOMEONE WITH REGARD TO OTHER VIOLATIONS, SOMETIMES THAT CAN ENHANCE YOUR ABILITY TO SETTLE A CASE. THE SOUTH CAROLINA LABOR DEPARTMENT WAS INVOLVED; LETTERS WERE WRITTEN TO OSHA, AND THEY WERE INVOLVED. AND THEN FINALLY WE FILED THE FORM 50 TO BRING TO THE COMMISSION THE LUNG TISSUE DAMAGE, WHICH RESULTED FROM HER BREATHING WITH THE LACK OF CERTAIN BREATHING APPARATUS, WHICH WE FOUND WAS IN VIOLATION OF OSHA VIOLATIONS (SIC) AND SAFETY REGULATIONS.
Q     HAS THAT MATTER OF WHETHER IT WAS PERMISSIBLE TO USE THAT FORM 50, OR WHETHER YOU WERE SOMEHOW NEGLIGENT, BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE ANY COMMISSION OR BOARD?
A     OH, YES. THE COMMISSION HAS RULED IN ITS ORDER THAT IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR. IF ANYTHING, THE PROBLEMS MS. BAZZLE SUFFERED WERE EXCLUSIVELY LUNG. AND IF I MIGHT, LET ME JUST EXTENUATE JUST A LITTLE BIT. HER AGREEMENT THAT RESULTED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS CASE, WAS TOTALLY REVIEWED BY HERSELF AND MYSELF AND WITH HER HUSBAND PRESENT. I DIDN'T FORCE HER TO SIGN THAT AGREEMENT. IF ANYTHING, I WANTED HER TO THINK ABOUT IT. THAT AGREEMENT, I THOUGHT, WAS PRETTY GOOD, IN THAT IT ALLOWED FOR THE COMMISSION, IF THEY FELT NECESSARY, TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT; BUT THEY ALSO PROVIDED FOR HER COMPLETE MEDICAL FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE, AND FOR ANY MEDICAL CONDITION SUBSTANTIATED BY HER ATTENDING PHYSICIAN FOR WHICH THEY COULD ESTABLISH A NEXUS. SO IF HER ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, WHICH SHE HAD BEEN GOING TO MOST OF THE TIME, DR. HAYNES, FELT THAT SHE HAD A PROBLEM THAT WAS GENERATED BY THE ORIGINAL LUNG AND THE EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS, HE COULD REFER HER TO ANOTHER PHYSICIAN OR SPECIALTY; IF THAT SPECIALTY THEN DETERMINED THAT, YES, IT WAS CONNECTED, AND THEY PRODUCED LETTERS CONFIRMING THAT, THEN SHE WOULD HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO GO BACK AND SAY, "NOW YOU NEED TO PAY THIS AS WELL." WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THOSE CONDITIONS WERE, IN FACT, RELATED; AND QUITE FRANKLY, I DISAGREE WITH HER ON SOME OF THEM--A LOT OF THEM. AND I FELT THAT IF SHE PROCEEDED TO TRY TO GET PAYMENT, THEN SHE WOULD FIND HERSELF BEFORE THE COMMISSION AGAIN, AND ALL THE NECESSARY PLEADINGS HAVING TO BE FILED AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
Q     MR. HUFF, ON COMPLAINT NUMBER TWO, IN TERMS OF THE CHANGING OF DATES, THIS COMMITTEE WAS TOLD IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THERE WAS A DATE CHANGE FROM MAY 4TH TO MAY 8, 1991, AND THAT PREJUDICIALLY IMPACTED ON HER WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION APPLICATION--I THINK IT WAS, I BELIEVE, YOUR APPLICATION TO BE RELIEVED AS HER ATTORNEY?
A     THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH. I MADE A MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL. THAT WAS DONE, QUITE FRANKLY, AFTER MUCH THOUGHT. I THINK THE MOTION IS RATHER ARTICULATE. THE GENESIS OF THAT MOTION WAS THAT I COULD NO LONGER WORK WITH MS. BAZZLE. I COULD NOT COMMUNICATE WITH HER; AND WHEN I DID, SHE WOULD NOT LISTEN, AND IT BECAME VERY BURDENSOME, VERY DIFFICULT. MS. BAZZLE OFTENTIMES WOULD COME TO MY OFFICE UNANNOUNCED, WOULD MAKE COPIES ON MY COPIER, AND INTERRUPT MY SECRETARIES, AND I WOULD HAVE TO BRING HER BACK INTO THE OFFICE AND TELL HER WHERE CLIENTS SIT. AND A LOT OF TIMES SHE REMAINED THERE PRETTY LATE IN THE EVENING, BECAUSE, QUITE FRANKLY, WHEN SHE SAT DOWN IN MY OFFICE, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO REMOVE HER. SO FINALLY I FELT THAT THINGS HAD COME TO A POINT WHERE I HAD TO BE RELIEVED. AND SECONDLY, YOU KNOW--
Q     AS TO THAT PARTICULAR DATE BEING CHANGED, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER YOU MAY HAVE CHANGED THE DATE?
A     I DON'T REMEMBER CHANGING ANY DATES. I MEAN, THE DATES ON THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE AS THE DATES THAT ARE INDICATED. I WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO CHANGE DATES.
Q     MR. HUFF, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE A GRIEVANCE BOARD OTHER THAN IN THIS CASE, OR SUED IN ANY CASE BECAUSE OF CHANGING OF DATES OR FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS?
A     ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q     MOVING ON TO COMPLAINT NUMBER THREE, SHE SAYS THAT YOU--AND I'M NOT USING HER WORDS; I'M USING MINE--THAT YOU TOOK THE CASE FROM MR. FRANKLIN D. BEATTY BY EITHER INSINUATING OR SAYING THAT HE HAD ENGAGED IN WRONGFUL CONDUCT, AS IT RELATES TO OTHER CLAIMANTS, IN THAT SHE HAD ALREADY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MR. BEATTY, A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, AND THAT WHAT YOU DID WAS TO ASK HER TO TERMINATE THAT RELATIONSHIP IN ORDER THAT YOU COULD REPRESENT HER.
A     WELL, I DENY THAT VEHEMENTLY. I MEAN, I AM VERY MUCH FAMILIAR WITH WHAT SOLICITATION OF BUSINESS MEANS, AND I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT TRY TO UNDERCUT ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE BAR, PARTICULARLY WHERE I PRACTICE; AND, SECONDLY, I WOULD HAVE NO BASIS TO KNOW WHAT, IF ANY, PROBLEMS MR. BEATTY HAD. I VERY, VERY RARELY HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH HIM. AND FINALLY, MS. BAZZLE HAD COME TO ME--AS I REMEMBER--TO ASK ME QUESTIONS CONCERNING WORKERS' COMP, AND THEN MOVED INTO THE LEGAL ARENA. AND I CAUTIONED HER--BECAUSE SHE TOLD ME SHE HAD AN ATTORNEY--YOU KNOW, "I CAN'T GET INTO GIVING YOU LEGAL ADVICE IF YOU HAVE RETAINED COUNSEL."
Q     SO IT WAS TRUE THAT WHEN SHE CAME TO SEE YOU, AT LEAST INITIALLY, THAT SHE CAME TO YOU, WITH YOU IN THE SCOPE OF YOU BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT?
A     I THINK SO, INITIALLY, YES. BUT THEN AS THAT LONG INTERVIEW CONTINUED, IT CERTAINLY CHANGED ITS CHARACTER AND SCOPE TREMENDOUSLY.
Q     TO THE BEST OF YOUR MEMORY, DID SHE ASK YOU TO BE HER ATTORNEY OR DID YOU ASK HER TO BE YOUR CLIENT?
A     SHE ASKED ME TO BE HER ATTORNEY. MATTER OF FACT, CALLED AT HOME AND TALKED WITH MY WIFE, ASKING HER IF SHE WOULD TALK TO ME ABOUT BEING HER ATTORNEY.
Q     MR. HUFF, IN THIS COMPLAINT NUMBER THREE, SHE SAYS THAT YOUR PROMISED HER AND ALSO TOLD HER IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO TAKE MORE THAN A ONE-THIRD INTEREST IN THE CASE. IS THAT TRUE?
A     I TOLD HER THAT UNDER A CONTINGENCY FEE, THE NORMAL ATTORNEY FEE IS ONE-THIRD. MY CONTRACT INDICATES THAT. THE CONTRACT ALSO INDICATES COSTS FOR GETTING TRANSCRIPTS AND FILING APPEALS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT FOR THAT PARTICULAR LITIGATION, YES. THE CONTRACT IS VERY EXPLICIT ON THAT.
Q     PLEASE TELL THE COMMITTEE WHY YOU CAME TO CHARGE HER ADDITIONAL SUMS AFTER 1985?
A     I THINK IF YOU LOOK OVER THE LONG HISTORY OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE--WE WENT BACK ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS--THE FEES THAT I CHARGED WERE VERY NOMINAL, TO SAY THE LEAST. I REMEMBER ONE THAT SHE MENTIONED HERE TODAY. SHE APPARENTLY HAD INDICATED THAT SHE WAS HAVING SOME TYPE OF ALLERGIC REACTIONS TO CERTAIN FOOD PRODUCTS BECAUSE OF SOME ALTERCATIONS--OR, ALTERATIONS IN HER IMMUNE SYSTEM, AND SHE WAS BUYING A CERTAIN TYPE OF HEALTH FOOD STORE PRODUCTS, WHEAT BREADS OR CERTAIN TYPES OF BREADS AND CERTAIN TYPES OF ORANGE JUICE. I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF NOVEL AND SO WE FILED AN ACTION WITH THE COMMISSION WHEN THEY REFUSED TO PAY IT, AND WENT BACK, AND THE COMMISSION ORDERED THAT THEY PAY FOR HER ORANGE JUICE AND BREAD, AND WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT. AND THAT REQUIRED QUITE A LENGTHY PREPARATION. I THINK MY FEE IN THAT REGARD WAS $600.
Q     WHAT FEES DID MR. CLYBURN REVERSE AS RELATED TO YOU?
A     THE FEES THAT HE REVERSED WERE TWO INSTALLMENTS WHICH TOTALED TO ABOUT $550, WHICH WERE HELD IN MY TRUST ACCOUNT, AND FOR WHICH, AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY BEING RELEASED AS COUNSEL, I PETITIONED THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THOSE FEES. NOT HER; MYSELF.
Q     WHAT WERE THOSE FEES CHARGED FOR?
A     THOSE WERE FOR REPRESENTATION AT A SEVEN-AND-A-HALF-HOUR HEARING BEFORE COMMISSIONER MARCHANT THAT SHE MENTIONED TO YOU, IN WHICH THERE WAS A LOT OF MEDICAL PUT IN AND SON TRASK WAS IN THERE. THERE WAS PREPARATION PRIOR TO THE HEARING, THE HEARING ITSELF; AND WHAT I HAD DONE WAS, SHE HAD PAID ME IN TWO INSTALLMENTS AND I'D HELD IT IN TRUST. WE SUBSEQUENTLY GOT INTO PROBLEMS AFTER THE ORDER CAME DOWN AND I FILED MY MOTION TO BE RELIEVED, AND I FILED A MOTION SUBSEQUENT THERETO TO--
Q     THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER CERTAIN MEDICAL COSTS HAD TO BE PAID?
A     ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. AND THEY WERE RATHER EXTENSIVE. SON TRASK WAS THERE, ALONG WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF USF&G, AND WE WENT INTO A DETAILED REVIEW OF EVERY SINGLE REQUESTED PAYMENT ON HER MEDICAL. AND THE HEARING, AS I REMEMBER, LASTED SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS.
Q     DID YOU APPEAL FROM THE RULING OF MR. CLYBURN ABOUT THESE FEES?
A     NO, I DID NOT. IN THE REVIEW OF THAT ORDER, AS I REMEMBER IT--AND I DON'T HAVE IT BEFORE ME--HE JUST FOUND IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER FEE I HAD ASSESSED, AND THAT THOSE MATTERS--THOSE FEES HELD IN TRUST WOULD BE REFUNDED. AND TO BE QUITE FRANK WITH YOU, YOU KNOW, IN A LOT OF THE ATTITUDE OF MS. BAZZLE--WHO CALLED ME ON CHRISTMAS EVE MORNING TO APPRISE ME THAT AN ORDER WAS BEING ISSUED, AND WOKE ME UP--I FELT IT PROBABLY WOULD BE BETTER JUST TO GIVE THE LADY HER MONEY BACK AND MOVE ON.
Q     DID YOU GIVE THE MONEY BACK TO HER?
A     OH, YES, I DID. PURSUANT TO THE ORDER, I ISSUED A CHECK, BUT I DID GET--I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL CHRISTMAS EVE MORNING VERY EARLY SAYING, "GO LOOK IN YOUR MAILBOX. YOU GOT A LITTLE CHRISTMAS GIFT."
Q     ON THE MONIES THAT MR. HUNDLEY ORDERED THAT YOU COULD KEEP--THE MOST RECENT ORDER THAT MS. BAZZLE HAS NOW APPEALED--WHAT WERE THOSE FEES FOR?
A     THOSE FEES WERE FEES THAT WERE PAID, AS I REMEMBER IT, PRIOR TO 1990. THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED IN THAT REGARD WAS THE FACT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION HAD THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE ATTORNEYS' FEES ANYWAY, AND ANYONE WHO PRACTICES WORKMEN'S COMP KNOWS THAT THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A THORNY ISSUE. BUT IT BEFELL ME TO BE THE ATTORNEY THAT ULTIMATELY RAISED THE ISSUE WITH THE COMMISSION. I PREPARED A PRETRIAL BRIEF ON IT, AFTER MUCH LEGAL RESEARCH ON THE ISSUE. THE COMMISSION, AFTER A FOUR-MONTH DELIBERATION, ULTIMATELY DECIDED--ALMOST ON POINT, AS TO THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE RAISED IN THAT PRE-TRIAL BRIEF--AND, IN FACT, REVERSED ONE OF THE LOWER COMMISSIONERS.
Q     THOSE FEES WERE CHARGED FOR WHAT TYPE SERVICES?
A     AGAIN, FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSEQUENT MEDICAL BILLS.
Q     THIS WAS ALL SUBSEQUENT TO SETTLEMENT IN 1985?
A     ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. I JUST FELT THAT I WAS HIRED TO DO A JOB, NOT TO BE AN INDENTURED SERVANT.
Q     IN FILING THE AREA OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU AND YOUR TWO BROTHERS, MR. ROS HUFF AND MR. JIM HUFF, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IN WHICH YOU AND YOUR BROTHER ROS WERE ON THE PHONE WITH MS. BAZZLE, RELATED TO HER CLAIM?
A     YEAH, WE HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION--AND, AS I REMEMBER IT, I THINK MS. BAZZLE IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF WHO MY BROTHER WAS. SHE'S A VERY INQUISITIVE PERSON, A VERY DETAILED PERSON.
Q     WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION?
A     I THINK SHE HAD SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS AS TO ABOUT HER CLAIM, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WHAT ARE LIFETIME MEDICALS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND I, QUITE FRANKLY, VOLUNTEERED. I SAID, "WELL IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ROS TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU, IN ADDITION TO ME, IF THAT WOULD BE FURTHER COMFORT, I THINK HE CAN REASSURE YOU THAT I'M NOT MISLEADING YOU AS TO WHAT LIFETIME MEDICALS ARE, OR WHAT A CLINCHER IS, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE," AND THAT WAS IT. THERE WAS NO LEGAL ADVICE GIVEN TO HER AS TO "YOU SHOULD" OR "SHOULD NOT DO" ANYTHING. IT WAS MORE OF A QUESTION-AND-ANSWER TYPE THING.
Q     DID MR. ROS HUFF RECEIVE ANY FEE FOR THAT PHONE CONVERSATION?
A     NO, HE DID NOT.
Q     HAS HE RECEIVED ANY PART OF THE MONIES YOU HAVE EARNED?
A     SUBSEQUENT TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE, MY BROTHER HAD HELPED ME OUT IN THE CASE AND I PAID HIM SOME FEES. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HE HAD EVERYTHING PRE-CLEARED WITH HIS DEPARTMENT HEAD, AND THAT WAS ALL AFTER-HOURS ON THE WEEKENDS, NOT DURING WORK HOURS.
Q     THIS TIME THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THIS WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY WHAT PERIOD IN TIME?
A     PROBABLY A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT. IT WAS NOT A LONG DURATION.
Q     SOMETIME AROUND 1985 THEN?
A     I'M THINKING SO, YES, PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT.
Q     HAS MR. ROS HUFF ENGAGED IN ANY REPRESENTATION OF MS. BAZZLE--
A     NO.
Q     --SINCE THAT PERIOD?
A     ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q     DID YOU MAKE MS. BAZZLE AWARE THAT MR. HUFF WAS ASSISTING YOU--MR. ROS HUFF?
A     I TOLD MS. BAZZLE THAT I WOULD PROBABLY SEEK HIS COUNSEL AND INFORMATION ON CERTAIN POINTS TO VERIFY WHAT MY RESEARCH REVEALED, AND A LOT OF TIME THAT WAS DONE ON FAMILY VISITS WHEN HE WOULD COME DOWN OR I WOULD BE IN HIS HOUSE FOR THE HOLIDAYS AND I'D SIMPLY SAY, "I FOUND A CASE AND RESEARCHED A POINT. YOU KNOW, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT IT?" AND HE'D SAY, "WELL, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT." AND IT WAS MORE CASUAL--THERE WAS NO PRE-PLANNED MEETINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
Q     DID MR. ROS HUFF EVER APPEAR BEFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER?
A     NO, HE DID NOT.
Q     DID HE EVER CONTACT ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER?
A     NO, HE DID NOT. NEITHER DID I, AS A MATTER OF FACT. THAT'S EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.
Q     BUT IN TERMS OF--I'M TALKING ABOUT, JUST IN TERMS OF SEEKING TO SCHEDULE A HEARING OR--
A     YEAH, NO. NO. IF ANYTHING, I WAS SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER CASES MOVING AHEAD OF US, WHEN I KNEW WE HAD FILED AHEAD OF THEM.
Q     COULD YOU TELL ME THE GENERAL AMOUNT OF THE FEE THAT MR. ROS HUFF EARNED IN THIS MATTER?
A     THAT WAS BACK IN '85, '83. I WANT TO SAY IT WAS PROBABLY A COUPLE THOUSAND DOLLARS. AND THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO HIDE THAT OR SECRET THAT IN ANY WAY.
Q     AND FINALLY, IN THE AREA OF YOUR OTHER BROTHER, MR. JAMES--OR JIM HUFF, AS I KNOW HIM--SHE HAS ALLEGED TODAY THAT MR. JIM HUFF MISUSED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT YOU HAD GATHERED AND THAT YOUR FIRM HAD POSSESSION OF, IN REPRESENTING MR. ERGLE. COULD YOU BRIEFLY TELL THE COMMITTEE THE SCOPE OF YOUR BROTHER'S REPRESENTATION OF MR. ERGLE AND THE TYPES OF DOCUMENTS THAT MS. BAZZLE IS REFERRING TO TODAY ON WHICH SHE SAID HER NAME WAS USED?
A     SHE CAME IN AND APPARENTLY INFORMED ME THAT SOME INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN GOING ON WITH REGARD TO AIKEN DRUGS. IT WAS A RATHER PUBLIC SITUATION IN AIKEN COUNTY, BECAUSE THEY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FOCUSED IN ON SEVERAL PHARMACISTS IN THE AREA, AS FAR AS THE FILLING OF PRESCRIPTIONS. MR. ERGLE WAS APPARENTLY AN EMPLOYEE OF AIKEN DRUGS, AND AS YOU SAID, HE SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE. MY BROTHER REPRESENTED HIM IN A PLEA BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT IN THAT MATTER. AND WHEN MS. BAZZLE CAME IN TO TELL ME ABOUT THAT, FROM WHAT I COULD GATHER AND, YOU KNOW, IN INQUIRY AFTER SHE INFORMED ME OF IT, BASICALLY HER NAME HAD POPPED UP IN A RANDOM SELECTION, AND THEY PULLED HER RECORDS, FOUND NOTHING IN IT, AND THAT WAS IT. MR. ERGLE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT--BECAUSE I WENT OVER, AS A RESULT OF ALL OF THIS, AND ATTENDED THE HEARING THAT OCCURRED IN THE FEDERAL COURT, TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, STATEMENTS HE MIGHT MAKE, AND WHETHER OR NOT ANY INFORMATION THAT HE MIGHT PRESENT TO THE COURT WOULD BE OF A CONFLICT IN NATURE, OR WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD AFFECT MY CLIENT, AND NONE WAS THE CASE. AND AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED--I MEAN, SHE DID NOTHING WRONG. NO ONE ACCUSED HER OF DOING ANYTHING WRONG. NO WARRANTS WERE SERVED AGAINST HER FOR GETTING DRUGS ILLEGALLY. AND AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED, THAT WAS IT. THERE WAS NOTHING THERE.
Q     MR. HUFF, HAS MS. BAZZLE BROUGHT A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU AT THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE--EXCUSE ME--THE ATTORNEY FEE DISPUTE BOARD, OVER YOUR FEE CHARGED IN HER WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASE?
A     NO, SHE HAS NEVER DONE THAT.
Q     NOW, I'LL GET TO THE MATTER WHICH I THINK YOU'RE ANTICIPATING, WHICH IS, HAS ANYONE FILED A GRIEVANCE AGAINST YOU IN THIS MATTER RELATING TO YOUR REPRESENTATION OF HER?
A     ISN'T THERE A QUESTION ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT THAT? LET ME SEE.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE I RESPOND. YES, THAT'S NUMBER 32. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO THAT, MR. COUICK, BECAUSE I'M UNDER ADMONITION--
Q     I UNDERSTAND.
A     --NOT TO RESPOND, BUT I THINK MY QUESTIONNAIRE IS PARTICULAR ON THAT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR MR. HUFF ON THIS MATTER. IF THE COMMITTEE DECIDES TO CONTINUE AND TALK ABOUT ANY OTHER MATTER, I MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON OTHER MATTERS; BUT ON THE BAZZLE MATTER, THAT'S IT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY MORE ON THIS MATTER BEFORE WE GO ON.ANY MEMBERS HAVE--SENATOR MOORE?

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:

Q     MR. HUFF--AND BEAR WITH ME, BECAUSE I'VE TRIED TO MAKE NOTES AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH ALL OF THIS. COMPLAINT NUMBER TWO, I THINK, AS MR. COUICK POINTED OUT, IN REGARDS TO MS. BAZZLE'S REPRESENTATION OR PRIOR REPRESENTATION WITH MR. BEATTY.
A     RIGHT.
Q     HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH MR. BEATTY IN REGARDS TO MS BAZZLE?
A     NO.
Q     AND THERE'S NOTHING OF RECORD?
A     NO.
Q     AND, AGAIN, MAKING HURRIED NOTES, MR. COUICK TALKED ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUMS OF MONEY AFTER 1985.
A     CORRECT.
Q     AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT WAS TWENTY-ONE AND SOME ODD THOUSAND, A ONE-THIRD SETTLEMENT?
A     THAT'S RIGHT. SHE RECEIVED THE BALANCE.
Q     AND YOU TALKED ABOUT NOMINAL FEES. WHAT WOULD THE NOMINAL FEES TOTAL?
A     $600 IN ONE INSTANCE, AND $550 ON ANOTHER, I BELIEVE, OVER ABOUT A TEN-YEAR PERIOD--WELL, FROM '83 UNTIL '93.
Q     OKAY. AND I HAD A QUESTION, BUT I THINK IN LISTENING TO ALL OF THAT--I THINK I HAD AN ANSWER. MS. BAZZLE REPORTED THAT SHE HAD CONVINCED THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONERS TO ISSUE TWO RULINGS AGAINST THE SETTLEMENT ON ANOTHER MATTER.
A     YES. AND I THINK ON BOTH OF THOSE, I WAS INVOLVED. ONE HAD TO DO WITH WHERE THEY REFUSED TO PAY FOR CERTAIN FOOD PRODUCTS IN HER DIET, AND THE COMMISSION RULED AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND REQUIRED THEM TO PAY. THE OTHER ONE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN--AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE LAST ONE--DEALT WITH A HOTEL ROOM, WHERE SHE WANTED TO STAY AT THE HYATT ON THE BEACH-FRONT AS OPPOSED TO STAYING AT THE RED ROOF INN. ANOTHER RELATED--THIS WAS ALL ENCOMPASSED IN THE LAST ONE--RELATED TO HER HIRING A DRIVER TO DRIVE HER DOWN TO HILTON HEAD, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY FOR THAT, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY FOR A RENTAL CAR FOR HER TO DRIVE DOWN TO HILTON HEAD. AND THEN THERE WAS A MEDICAL PROCEDURE CALLED PLASMAPHERESIS--WHICH APPARENTLY IS WHERE THEY DRAW THE BLOOD OUT, CLEAN IT, AND PUT IT BACK IN. THEY FELT THAT WAS AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND DIDN'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT. THERE WERE CERTAIN FEMALE PRODUCTS THAT RELATE TO NORMAL MONTHLY REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY FOR THAT. I MEAN, IT WAS A LITANY OF THINGS THAT THEY--AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY THAT DEVELOPED. BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANY, I FELT, HAD BEEN VERY LAX IN THE PAST, AND ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS I HAD MADE IN THAT PARTICULAR HEARING WAS, THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD PAID FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS ROUTINELY IN EVERY BILL SUBMITTED, AND NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY WANTED TO STOP; AND THAT I FELT THAT, BECAUSE OF THAT, I COULD SHOW THAT SHE HAD--IN ESSENCE, HER HEALTH HAD GOTTEN BETTER AND TO NOW STOP IT WOULD DETRIMENTALLY IMPACT ON HER HEALTH. THEY APPARENTLY HAD AN OUTSIDE SCREENING PROCESS THEN, THAT WAS DEVELOPED, SO THEY COULD GO THROUGH AND LOOK IN DETAIL AT ALL OF THESE MEDICAL BILLS, SO THEY WERE CHECKING OFF A LOT OF THINGS AND REFUSING TO PAY--WHICH REQUIRED HER TO GO BACK TO THE COMMISSION, AND THAT'S WHEN SHE WOULD COME TO ME. AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO DECIDE, IS IT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD SUBMIT OR NOT SUBMIT? AND THAT'S WHERE THOSE FEES CAME FROM.
Q     OKAY. SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT--AND, AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE; I'M TRYING MY BEST TO UNDERSTAND--THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT, $21,000-PLUS--
A     THAT WAS IN '83.
Q     AND THEN THE OTHER ADDITIONAL SUM, $600, $550, SOMEWHERE IN THAT--$1,150 OR THEREABOUTS--
A     RIGHT, THAT'S CORRECT. PART OF THOSE FEES IN THOSE ORDERS INVOLVED AN APPEAL FEE OF $100. THE $415 WAS A TRANSCRIPT FEE. SHE ORIGINALLY, IN HER APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION TO SEEK REFUND OF THOSE, ASKED THAT I PAY FOR THE TRANSCRIPT AND PAY FOR THE APPEAL. AND THEN, SUBSEQUENTLY, ONCE WE GOT THERE, SHE SAID THAT SHE DIDN'T WANT ME TO REFUND THE $100 OR THE $415 FOR THE TRANSCRIPT TO PREPARE THE APPEAL.
Q     AND MR. CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT--OR MR. COUICK, OR ONE OF YOU--TALKED ABOUT, PURSUANT TO THE ORDER, THE MONEY WAS REFUNDED?
A     THAT WAS ONE OF COMMISSIONER CLYBURN'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     AND HOW MUCH WAS THAT?
A     THAT WAS THE $550 THAT I HAD IN MY ESCROW ACCOUNT AND HAD HELD IN TRUST, AND FOR WHICH I HAD MOTIONED THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE APPROVED OR NOT.
SENATOR MOORE: I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW, MR. CHAIRMAN.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: JUST ONE QUESTION.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THEN THAT THE FEES YOU CHARGED WERE WITHIN, ON EACH CLAIM, WITHIN THE ONE-THIRD STANDARD; THAT YOU DID NOT EXCEED THAT?
A     WELL, THE FEES I SUBSEQUENTLY CHARGED WERE BASICALLY A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT BASED ON AN HOURLY RATE, BUT CERTAINLY WAS--
Q     BUT ON THE CONTINGENCY PART.
A     OH, YES, MOST DEFINITELY. THE FEES--YES, MOST DEFINITELY. IT WAS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CONTRACT, SPECIFICALLY.
Q     AND THE COMMISSION APPROVED OF THE FEE?
A     I THINK THERE WAS A FEE APPLICATION OR SOMETHING FILED THAT SHE SIGNED, YEAH.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     IF I COULD CHARACTERIZE IT THIS WAY, MR. HUFF, IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. I THINK YOUR APPROACH TO THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM MS. BAZZLE'S. YOU HAVE APPROACHED THIS AS A CASE; IT WAS SETTLED; THERE WAS A FEE CLAIMED.
A     MOST DEFINITELY.
Q     THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER COURSE OF REPRESENTATION THAT BEGAN.
A     SEVERAL COURSES.
Q     MS. BAZZLE HAS APPROACHED THAT THERE HAS JUST BEEN ONE CASE, AND NO MATTER WHAT HAS EVER TAKEN PLACE, FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR YOU TO REPRESENT HER FOR THAT $21,000 FEE YOU EARNED IN 1983.
A     THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS HER IMPRESSION, THAT CONTRACT BINDS ME FOR LIFE.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF ANY MEMBER IS INTERESTED, I HAVE ALL ORDERS AND DECISIONS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION HERE THAT WE RECEIVED UNDER A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST LAST WEEK. I WAS READING FROM THEM AS I WENT THROUGH, ASKING MS. BAZZLE QUESTIONS, AND MR. HUFF, AND I'D BE GLAD TO MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERSHIP (HANDING DOCUMENTS TO CHAIRMAN McCONNELL).
WITNESS: AND MS. BAZZLE WAS CORRECT; SHE DID APPEAL THE LAST ORDER--I GOT THAT, I BELIEVE YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN--AND AGAIN APPEALED ALL OF THE ISSUES ONCE AGAIN.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     TELL ME, REPRESENTATIVE, HOW DO YOU SEPARATE THE DIFFERENT CASES? HOW WOULD YOU CATEGORIZE DIFFERENT CASES, GIVEN THE FACT THAT SHE SEES IT ALL AS ONE THING. HOW DO YOU DEFINE THE DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIONS?
A     WELL, CERTAINLY, THE ORIGINAL REPRESENTATION WAS TO HOPEFULLY BE SUCCESSFUL IN PROVING THAT SHE WAS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED, AND IT WAS WORK-RELATED. ONCE THAT DETERMINATION WAS ARRIVED AT BY THE COMMISSION AND AN AWARD WAS MADE, IT'S MY IMPRESSION THAT, IN ESSENCE, ENDS THAT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP. THAT'S WHAT I WAS HIRED TO DO: TO GET A DETERMINATION OF PERMANENT DISABILITY AND GET AN AWARD. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THINGS WENT SMOOTHLY, AND THEN SHE COMES BACK WHEN THINGS DEVELOPED THAT THEY WOULDN'T PAY CERTAIN BILLS. I CONSIDER THAT TO BE, IN ESSENCE, A NEW REPRESENTATION. OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE A NEVER-ENDING CONTRACT FOR WHICH MAYBE YOU COULD BE BOUND FOR LIFE. SO WHEN THEY THEN SUBSEQUENTLY COME BACK, I TREAT THAT AS A NEW PARTICULAR MATTER TO BE LITIGATED BEFORE THE COMMISSION. ARE THESE BILLS COVERED? ARE THEY NOT? AND CERTAINLY, I THINK, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ORDER IS CRAFTED, I ARGUED TO THE COMMISSION--I REMEMBER THIS--THAT CERTAINLY BECAUSE OF HOLISTIC MEDICATION AND CERTAIN NUTRITIONISTS IN THIS DAY AND AGE--AND THAT'S HOW I THINK I PREVAILED ULTIMATELY--THAT THERE ARE NOW CERTAIN MEDICAL TREATMENTS THAT GO BEYOND WHAT YOU AND I MIGHT CLASSIFY AS STANDARD MEDICAL CARE, AND, IN FACT, COULD INCLUDE NUTRITION AS PART OF MEDICAL COVERAGE. AND THEY APPARENTLY AGREED WITH ME AND PUT THAT IN THE ORDER, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS--AND I COULD NOT FIND ANY CASE IN POINT ON THAT. AND IT WAS NOT APPEALED, SO--IF IT HAD, I THINK I COULD HAVE MADE PRECEDENT.
Q     MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THE ATTORNEY'S RETAINER IN THE AGREEMENT OF MAY 4, 1993, SAYS THAT, "I, THE UNDERSIGNED, CAROLYN A. BAZZLE, DO HEREBY RETAIN THOMAS E. HUFF AS MY ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE, PROSECUTE, OR ADJUST SUCH CLAIM OR ACTIONS AS MAY BE DEEMED ADVISABLE BY SAID ATTORNEY AND," HERE'S THE KEY PART, I BELIEVE, "TO RECOVER DAMAGES GROWING OUT OF PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES IN AN ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED ON 12/1/1978."?
A     MR. HUFF: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     CHAIRMAN MCCONNELL: AND I THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED--AND THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD CONSIDERED THAT--I THINK THE COMMISSION, AT LEAST IN THE LAST ORDER THAT MS. BAZZLE HAS APPEALED, HAS DECIDED, AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE, THAT IT WAS ENDED BY THE SETTLEMENT THAT WAS REACHED--
A     MR. HUFF: THAT'S RIGHT.
Q     CHAIRMAN MCCONNELL--AND IT'S A SEPARATE MATTER NOW. AS I SAID, THAT IS ON APPEAL. MS. BAZZLE HAS RAISED THAT AS AN ISSUE, BUT AT LEAST TO DATE, THE RULING FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS THAT THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE MATTERS.
A     MR. HUFF: THAT'S CORRECT.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: LET ME ASK A QUESTION. YOU JUST GOT MY ATTENTION THERE. THAT STATEMENT YOU JUST READ, WOULD YOU READ THAT TO ME AGAIN?
MR. COUICK: YES, SIR. LET ME READ THE LAST PART.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: THE DATE, AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE ISSUE OF SETTLEMENT. TELL ME HOW THAT RELATES.
MR. COUICK: MR. HUFF AND MS. BAZZLE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF MAY 4, 1983, FOR HIM TO REPRESENT HER. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE CALLING THE ONE-THIRD CONTINGENCY FEE.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COUICK: THE THING THAT HE WAS TO REPRESENT HER IN, WHAT SHE WANTED HIM TO DO, WAS TO GET HER MONEY--OR TO GET HER WHATEVER--TO RECOVER DAMAGES GROWING OUT OF PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES IN AN ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED ON 12/1/78. THAT WAS THE DATE THAT MS. BAZZLE RECEIVED HER INJURY, WHETHER THAT BE LUNG, BY MR. HUFF'S TESTIMONY, OR TOTAL BODY AS PER MS. BAZZLE'S TESTIMONY. THAT WAS THE DATE OF THE INJURY, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, THE DATE OF THE INJURY, AS TO WHETHER IT WAS REPETITIVE OR WHATEVER.
WITNESS: YOU ALSO HAVE TO FILE IT WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME OR YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO FILE IT.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:

Q     THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, WERE THEY AWARE--WERE THEY UNDER THE IMPRESSION YOU WERE STILL REPRESENTING HER AFTER THE INITIAL SETTLEMENT?
A     CERTAINLY WHEN I WENT BACK AND FILED MOTIONS TO ASK CERTAIN MEDICAL BILLS TO BE APPROVED, I WAS THEN RECONTRACTED WITH HER TO REPRESENT HER ON THAT PARTICULAR ACTION, YES.
Q     YOU HAD SIGNED ANOTHER CONTRACT WITH HER?
A     NO. I SIMPLY FILED; THEN, I BILLED HER; AND THEN, ON THE FIRST FEE--WHICH WAS THE $600--RECEIVED TWO INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS. AND QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE REPRESENTATION, THE FEE WAS VERY NOMINAL. AND I DID THAT FOR A REASON--BECAUSE I HAD RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL SETTLEMENT A COUPLE OF YEARS EARLIER--AND I FELT IN FAIRNESS AND IN EQUITY THAT, AS LONG AS I COVERED MY TIME, THAT WAS SUFFICIENT. QUITE FRANKLY, A SEVEN-AND-A-HALF-HOUR HEARING, WHICH WAS THE LAST ONE BEFORE COMMISSIONER MARCHANT, I THINK THE FEE WAS THE $550 FOR--THAT WAS JUST THE HEARING. THAT WAS NOT PREPARATION PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND REVIEW OF MEDICALS IN PREPARATION TO PRESENT IT TO THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE QUESTION I HAD EARLIER ON THIS MATTER OF THE AGREEMENT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: MR. COUICK.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     THE AGREEMENT CERTAINLY--IF MS. BAZZLE QUESTIONS IT AND SHE HAS APPEALED IT, AT LEAST IT IS QUESTIONABLE. I WOULD SAY, JUST FROM LOOKING AT IT, IT MAY EVEN BE QUESTIONABLE TO AN AVERAGE MAN, TO SOME DEGREE. SO THEN TO SOME DEGREE, YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK BACK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AND SEE WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE PERSON'S MIND. I'M LOOKING HERE THAT YOU AND MS. BAZZLE SIGNED AND YOU ALSO HAD A MS. LOU H. BERRY WITNESS THE DOCUMENT.
A     THAT WAS MY SECRETARY.
Q     IS SHE STILL IN YOUR EMPLOY?
A     SHE IS NOT IN MY EMPLOY, BUT SHE'S STILL IN THE AREA.
Q     SO IF WE WANTED TO TALK TO HER, SHE WOULD BE AVAILABLE?
A     MOST CERTAINLY.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, FINALLY, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE PERHAPS RESERVE OUR RIGHTS TO CALL MS. BERRY, AND, IN ADDITION, BECAUSE OF WHAT COUNSEL HAS HEARD TODAY, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE ROLE OF MR. ROS HUFF. I DON'T MEAN TO SAY ANYTHING WAS WRONG ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP, BUT COUNSEL WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY, PERHAPS TOMORROW, IF POSSIBLE, TO SPEND TEN OR 15 MINUTES ASKING MR. ROS HUFF SOME QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY OTHER MEMBERS?
SENATOR MOORE: WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS NOW. I JUST, I GUESS, NEED TO INQUIRE OF THE CHAIR EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED FROM THIS POINT, IN LIGHT OF WHAT COUNSEL JUST SAID.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: (TO MR. COUICK) ARE YOU GOING TO BE READY TOMORROW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. COUICK: YES.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 12 SUBPOENAS OUT FOR TOMORROW. THEY ARE A LIST OF PEOPLE PROVIDED BY THE CANDIDATES--AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THE STATEMENT I'M MAKING.
MS. SATTERWHITE: THEY'RE UNRELATED TO--
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YEAH, THEY'RE UNRELATED TO--
MR. COUICK: THEY'RE ON THE FAMILY COURT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THEY'RE ON THE OTHER RACE.
SENATOR MOORE: THEN I GUESS MY QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN LIGHT OF COUNSEL'S TALKING ABOUT HAVING SOME KIND OF QUESTIONS OF MR. ROS HUFF AND POSSIBLY LOU BERRY, WOULD THAT AFFORD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MR. HUFF AND/OR MS. BAZZLE TO RETURN? ARE WE LEAVING THAT OPEN TO FOLLOW UP ON ANY COMMENTS FROM THEM?
MS. BAZZLE: I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP NOW ON SOME THINGS.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN, MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE LEAVING IT OPEN TO RECALL EITHER ONE?
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I CERTAINLY THINK IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE PARTIES' RIGHTS--
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YEAH.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, TREATING THIS LIKE A COURT CASE, WE ARE NARROWING THE ISSUES AS WE GO. AND RIGHT NOW, AT LEAST TO COUNSEL'S MIND, WE'VE NARROWED THE ISSUES AS TO THE ATTORNEY'S AGREEMENT AND AS TO THE ROLE OF MR. ROS HUFF--NOT THAT WE'VE DISCARDED WHETHER THERE WAS ANYTHING RIGHT OR WRONG ABOUT THE OTHER ACTIVITY; IT'S JUST THAT, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THE QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE LEFT ARE TO MR. ROS HUFF AND ABOUT THE AGREEMENT. SO, IF EITHER ONE OF THESE TWO WITNESSES--MR. HUFF OR MS. BAZZLE--COMES BACK, I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO CONTAIN WHATEVER PRESENTATION TO THOSE SAME TWO ISSUES, AS IT RELATES TO THE BAZZLE MATTER.
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN, THE PURPOSE OF MY QUESTION WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, THAT WE NOT CLOSE THE DOOR TO AFFORD EITHER MR. HUFF OR MS. BAZZLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE COMMENTS AFTER ANY PRESENTATION HAS BEEN MADE, SO THAT EITHER OR BOTH CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON IT.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW, BUT THE RULES CONTEMPLATE THAT MS. BAZZLE WENT FIRST, MR. HUFF RESPONDS, AND WE'VE JUST BEEN THROUGH A FULL CIRCUIT OF THOSE COMMENTS. WE'RE GETTING READY TO START ANOTHER FULL CIRCUIT WITH TWO OTHER WITNESSES. I WOULD IMAGINE THEN THAT WHATEVER CHOICE YOU COULD MAKE, ONE WOULD FOLLOW THE OTHER, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE ON THOSE TWO NARROW ISSUES OF THE AGREEMENT AND WHAT WAS INTENDED, AND ON MR. ROS HUFF'S PARTICIPATION IN THAT MATTER. I SAID THAT BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO SEE US GET BACK INTO THE WHOLE MATTER AGAIN. AND AS I SAY, MS. BAZZLE, IT'S NOT UP TO THE COMMITTEE'S COUNSEL TO DETERMINE THIS ANYWAY, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO MATTERS THAT ARE LEFT UNSETTLED IN MY MIND RIGHT NOW, AS TO WHAT HAPPENED.
MS. BAZZLE: THERE IS MISREPRESENTATION IN MONEY. THERE'S MISREPRESENTATION IN THAT MR. HUFF WAS NO LONGER MY ATTORNEY OF MY CASE. THERE'S A RULING BY COMMISSIONER RHINEHART BROWNING THAT STATED THAT HE WAS THE ATTORNEY OF THE CASE, AND IT'S DATED APRIL 24, 1986--THAT YOU HAVE--THAT HE WAS TIED TO MY CASE; I HAD NO CHOICE. I ASKED MR. HUFF AFTER HE TOLD ME HE DID NOT WANT THAT, THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO WORK FOR ME, TO GO TO THE COMMISSION AND ASK FOR HIM TO BE REMOVED; HE WOULD NOT DO IT. JUST LIKE I ASKED HIM TO GO TO THE COMMISSION AND TO CORRECT THE MESS THAT HE DID WITH DR. MICHAEL S. HAYNES; HE WOULD NOT DO IT. SO NOW DR. MICHAEL S. HAYNES HAS DONE IT HIMSELF ON ME, WITH TWO LETTERS, BUT--
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN.
MS. BAZZLE: --THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER--
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: HOLD ON. EXCUSE ME, LET ME SEE WHAT COUNSEL WANTS.
MR. COUICK: MS. BAZZLE AND MR. CHAIRMAN, COUNSEL HAD TRIED TO HELP MS. BAZZLE ORGANIZE HER COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THE DISTINCT AREAS THAT SHE PUT IN WITH HER COMPLAINT. I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS SHE SPEAKS TO NOW--DR. MICHAEL HAYNES AND OTHERS--ARE NOT FORMALLY WITHIN HER COMPLAINT. ON THE ISSUE OF MONEY AND REPRESENTATION, I THINK THERE ARE FACTS WITHIN THE RECORD THAT WILL ALLOW THIS COMMITTEE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED. I'M NOT SAYING THAT MS. BAZZLE COULD NOT COME AND REPEAT THINGS THAT ARE IN DOCUMENTATION THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS. IF YOU WILL RECALL, MS. BAZZLE, WE ACCEPTED YOUR FULL COMPLAINT INTO THE RECORD; WE'VE ALSO GOT YOUR DOCUMENTATION. I THINK WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL THE MEANS OF DETERMINING THAT NOW. I JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT AGAIN.
MS. BAZZLE: THAT, YOUR HONOR, WAS THE PURPOSE OF GIVING YOU THOSE ADDITIONAL SHEETS THAT TOTALED OVER TWENTY-SOMETHING ITEMS BECAUSE I COULD NOT--
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WE HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE, MS. BAZZLE.
MS. BAZZLE: --AND WENT THROUGH IT, BUT THE MONEY THAT MR HUFF HAS TESTIFIED TO THAT HE HAD TO PAY ME BACK WAS $550, AND THE OTHER MONEY THAT IS OWING RIGHT NOW IS $650, BUT THAT'S NOT THE DAMAGING PART OF THE CASE. THE DAMAGING PART OF THE CASE IS THAT I GAVE YOU TWO SMALL FOLDERS THAT WAS ABOUT LIKE THIS (INDICATING). I GAVE YOU THAT GREAT BIG RED FOLDER OVER THERE, AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PUT IN. HE DID NOT PUT IN THE MEDICAL LETTERS OR THE DOCUMENTS. I BROUGHT THREE EXPERT WITNESSES. HE DIDN'T. I HAD TO. I HAD FROM MONDAY TO THURSDAY TO GET THOSE DOCTORS TO THAT HEARING. THAT WAS MY PROBLEM, AND MR.--
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: HOLD ON FOR A MINUTE. OKAY, COUNSEL.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I UNDERSTAND MS. BAZZLE'S EMOTIONAL FEELINGS ABOUT THIS CASE AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HER. WE ASKED HER QUESTIONS EARLIER ABOUT WHAT THE RESULT WAS OF CERTAIN ACTIVITY SHE ALLEGED ON THE PART OF MR. HUFF. I THINK WHAT SHE'S GIVING YOU NOW IS SPECIFIC FACTUAL INCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED, BUT SHE HAS ALREADY GENERALLY DESCRIBED THE RESULT OF THE FORM 50; AND THAT IS, THAT CERTAIN THINGS AREN'T COVERED. AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH A LITANY OF EVERY NON-COVERED HEALTH PROBLEM, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RAPIDLY HEADING NOW. COUNSEL DOES NOT DISAGREE WITH MS. BAZZLE'S ASSESSMENT THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THERE. IT'S JUST THAT I THINK THIS COMMITTEE IS FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THE RESULT WAS--WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH HER CHARACTERIZATION THAT IT WAS MR. HUFF'S FAULT OR NOT, BUT I THINK THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT SHE HAS NON-COVERED MEDICAL EXPENSES THAT ARE AT LEAST PROXIMALLY CAUSED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S DENIAL OF THAT COVERAGE. AND I HATE--I'M JUST TRYING TO PRESERVE MS. BAZZLE'S TIME, THIS COMMITTEE'S TIME, AND KEEP THE RECORD STRAIGHT. I THINK TO GO BEYOND THAT REALLY PUTS THIS COMMITTEE IN A POSITION OF BEING A HEALTH CARE OVERSIGHT REVIEW COMMITTEE, AS OPPOSED TO BEING A JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE, AND I THINK YOU FAIRLY UNDERSTAND NOW THE PROBLEMS SHE HAS HAD BECAUSE OF THAT FORM 50.
WITNESS: MR. COUICK, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORDER PROVIDES THAT AS LONG AS HER DOCTORS CONNECT THE PROBLEM--WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE: HEART, HEAD, EXTREMITIES--AS LONG AS A PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO CONNECT IT TO THE ORIGINAL INJURY, SHE HAS NO PROBLEMS.
MR. COUICK: AND THAT'S ON THE RECORD FROM MS. BAZZLE, AS WELL, AND I THINK--
MS. BAZZLE: THAT'S TRUE, YOUR HONOR, BUT THERE'S A CATCH TO IT THAT MR. HUFF DOES NOT WANT TO ACCEPT. AT THE HEARING THAT HE CLAIMS LASTED SEVEN HOURS, HE NEVER ONE TIME SAID TO THAT COMMISSION, "YOUR HONOR, ONE THROUGH 30-SOMETHING IS DEFINITELY CONNECTED TO THIS LADY'S INJURY, AND THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE," AND HE DID NOT PUT IN THE EVIDENCE.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THAT TAKES ME RIGHT BACK TO THE POINT I SAID A MINUTE AGO. WE ARE GETTING TO A POINT WHERE SHE IS ASKING YOU TO BECOME A HEALTH CARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO HER, AND TO DECIDE WHETHER CERTAIN TREATMENTS OUGHT TO BE COVERED. IF YOU TAKE IT AS TRUE THAT MR. HUFF IS AT FAULT FOR THE WRONGFUL FILING OF THE FORM 50, AND IT WAS SOMEHOW INCOMPLETE, THEN I THINK YOU CAN ALSO TAKE IT AS TRUE THAT MS. BAZZLE HAS HAD SIGNIFICANT MEDICAL PROBLEMS THAT HAVE ARISEN OUT OF NOT BEING COVERED. I DON'T THINK IT ADDS ANYTHING TO HER TESTIMONY TODAY TO GO THROUGH THE LITANY OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS OCCURRED TO HER AND IT BEING NON-COVERED. I WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT ON THE RECORD, AS COUNSEL FOR THIS COMMITTEE, THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH TREATMENTS THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COVERED BY INSURANCE. WHETHER THAT BE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE COVERED BECAUSE THEY DON'T RELATE TO THE LUNG CONDITION, OR BECAUSE SOMEHOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AREN'T GIVING HER (INDICATING) "TOTAL-BODY COVERAGE," I THINK IS REALLY IMMATERIAL. IT ALL REALLY GETS BACK TO THE FORM 50 AND TO WHETHER IT WAS FILLED OUT COMPLETELY OR NOT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: SENATOR MOORE?
SENATOR MOORE: MR. CHAIRMAN, EXCLUSIVE OF THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, I WOULD ALSO--BECAUSE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN ASKED SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE JOB--RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ASK MR. HUFF SOME QUESTIONS AFTER THIS MATTER HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YOU WANT MR. HUFF TO BE ON STANDBY TOMORROW?
SENATOR MOORE: YES, SIR.
MS. BAZZLE: I JUST WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE STATEMENT, AND I'M READY TO GO HOME.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: HOLD ON, AND LET ME GET THIS WRAPPED UP. (TO MR. COUICK) THIS IS ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK HIM?
MR. COUICK: AS IT RELATES TO THE BAZZLE MATTER.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YOU WANT TO FINISH UP WITH HIM TODAY ON THE OTHER STUFF, OR DO YOU WANT TO HOLD THAT BACK?
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK IT'S REALLY GOING TO MIX APPLES AND ORANGES, AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE, OUT OF FAIRNESS TO MR. HUFF AND OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THAT'LL BE FINE.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT IS OUR SCHEDULE FOR IN THE MORNING, NOW? NINE O'CLOCK?
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: NINE O'CLOCK, AND WE'LL BEGIN--
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: AND WHO WILL WE HEAR AT NINE O'CLOCK?
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: MR. GARFINKLE AND HIS--AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND LET ME MAKE SURE WITH YOU (TO WITNESS). YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBPOENA SOME FOLKS TO RESPOND TO ANY LABELING.
WITNESS: THEY WERE HERE TODAY.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: AND THOSE WERE YOUR FOLKS--
WITNESS: YES, THEY WERE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: --WHO WERE DONE. OKAY. SO TOMORROW, WHAT WE WILL BE DOING IS, FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL BE TAKING UP THE WITNESSES WHO WILL BE RESPONDING TO THE LABELING THAT THEY RECEIVED, AND WE'RE GIVING EACH OF THE CANDIDATES AN OPPORTUNITY, IF THEY WISH, TO CALL SOME WITNESSES AND RESPOND. AND WE'VE DONE OUR BEST, AS BEST WE COULD, TO IDENTIFY WHO THOSE PEOPLE MIGHT BE SO THAT THEY COULD CALL THEM, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO TOMORROW. NOW, HAVING COMPLETED THAT, THEN, WE'LL BE BACK TO THIS MATTER.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD INTEND TO START OUT WITH MR. HUFF ON THIS VERY MATTER OF THE BAZZLE MATTER, AS IT RELATES TO MS. LOU BERRY AND MR. ROS HUFF, WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MR. TOM HUFF AND MS. CAROLYN ANDERSON BAZZLE TO COMMENT ON THAT; AND THEN, MOVE STRAIGHT INTO THE PHILOSOPHICAL AREA TO TRY TO CONCLUDE THE MATTER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: SO, IF I WERE GOING TO TELL HER WHAT TIME SHE NEEDED TO BE HERE--
MR. COUICK: TOMORROW AFTERNOON.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: --TOMORROW AFTERNOON.
MS. BAZZLE: I'LL COME IN THE MORNING. I JUST WANTED TO STRESS ONE THING--AND I'M NOT TRYING TO KEEP HIM FROM GETTING A JUDGESHIP, BUT WHERE THE BREAKDOWN OF MY DAMAGE TO MY CASE IS, IS THAT THE INFORMATION, WHICH THE LETTERS WERE THERE, THE DOCUMENTATION WAS THERE, AND HE DID NOT DO HIS WORK. THAT IS MY BIG COMPLAINT THAT'S BEING OVERLOOKED. HE DID NOT SUBMIT THE EVIDENCE. HE DID NOT TELL THE COMMISSIONER HOW IT WAS RELATED. THE INFORMATION WAS THERE; HE NEVER SUBMITTED IT.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: COUNSEL INFORMS ME THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS AND TOMORROW--
MS. BAZZLE: I GAVE THEM TO YOU.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YEAH, AND HE TELLS ME THAT WE DO HAVE THEM IN THE RECORDS. AND WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, MR. HUFF, I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FROM THE STAND AT THIS TIME. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU BE AVAILABLE SOMETIME TOMORROW. HOW MANY WITNESSES HAVE WE GOT? 12? WE HAVE 12 ON SUBPOENA FOR TOMORROW, AND ONCE WE HAVE COMPLETED THAT, WE WILL BE BACK TO Y'ALL.

(WITNESS STANDS ASIDE; 5:30 P.M.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: IS THERE ANY OTHER MATTER THAT NEEDS TO COME UP THIS EVENING, BEFORE I RECEDE?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WITH THAT, WE WILL RECEDE UNTIL NINE O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING.
(WHEREUPON, AT 5:30 P.M., THE HEARING IS ADJOURNED, TO BE RECONVENED ON MAY 5, 1993, AT 9:00 A.M.)

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING OF
MAY 5, 1993

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: IT'S NOW 9:35. WE ARE REOPENING THE HEARINGS. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GOING BACK NOW AND TAKING ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY REGARDING THE FAMILY COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS SEATS. WE MOVE, FIRST OF ALL--I UNDERSTAND SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED BY THIS COMMITTEE IN BEHALF OF MR. PAUL W. GARFINKEL. I BELIEVE MR. ROBERT WALLACE IS THE FIRST WITNESS. MR. WALLACE, IF YOU WILL COME UP TO THE CHAIR RIGHT THERE AT THE END AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

(WITNESS SWORN; 9:36 A.M.)

WHEREUPON, ROBERT B. WALLACE, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT, AND GOOD MORNING.
WITNESS: GOOD MORNING TO YOU, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. WALLACE, I APOLOGIZE FOR HOLDING YOU UP THIS MORNING. I PROMISE TO KEEP THIS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE, BUT WOULD OFFER THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMITTEE TO MAKE ITS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE GARFINKEL'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE FAMILY COURT JUDGESHIP. HE HAS INDICATED THAT YOU ARE A PERSON FAMILIAR WITH HIS QUALIFICATIONS, AND HE HAS GIVEN THE COMMITTEE YOUR NAME AS A PERSON WHO CAN TESTIFY AS TO THOSE QUALIFICATIONS. BUT I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT YOU'RE HERE UNDER SUBPOENA BY THIS COMMITTEE--YOU'RE NOT HERE AT HIS INVITATION--AND WOULD ASK, AS I KNOW YOU WOULD DO OTHERWISE, TO BE VERY HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT IN YOUR ANSWERS TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT I OR THE COMMITTEE ASK YOU ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS.
A     YES, SIR.
Q     IS THAT AGREEABLE?
A     THAT IS.
Q     IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING I ASK TODAY, PLEASE JUST ASK ME TO SPEAK UP. I'LL BE GLAD TO DO SO. IF YOU NEED A DOCUMENT THAT WE MAY HAVE, WE'LL BE GLAD TO SUPPLY THAT TO YOU AS WELL. I BELIEVE YOU PRACTICE IN THE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, AREA; IS THAT RIGHT?
A     THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q     AND WHAT IS YOUR AREA OF PRACTICE?
A     I PRACTICE GENERALLY IN THREE AREAS--FOUR AREAS: CRIMINAL LAW, FAMILY LAW, PERSONAL INJURY, AND BUSINESS LAW. I'M IN GENERAL PRACTICE, HOWEVER, AND HANDLE ESTATES AND OTHER THINGS, BUT THOSE ARE MY FOUR AREAS OF INTEREST.
Q     AND IN THOSE AREAS, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN PRACTICE IN THE CHARLESTON AREA? HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ACTIVELY IN PRACTICE?
A     SINCE 1959. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT 33 YEARS.
Q     MR. WALLACE, DURING THAT PERIOD OF PRACTICE, HAVE YOU COME TO BE RECOGNIZED BY YOUR PEERS AS SOMEONE WHO EXCELS IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THOSE AREAS? I REALIZE I'M ASKING YOU TO TOOT YOUR OWN HORN, BUT ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIVE MANIFESTATIONS OF OTHER FOLKS RECOGNIZING THAT YOU ARE A GOOD LAWYER?
A     I HAVE AN AV RATING IN MARTINDALE, WHICH IS BASED ON PEER REVIEW. I'M A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS, WHICH IS BY INVITATION ONLY.
Q     YES, SIR.
A     I'M LISTED IN THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA IN ALL FOUR CATEGORIES IN WHICH I PRACTICE PREDOMINANTLY. I'M LISTED IN SOME--DEBARTOLO'S BEST CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, AND I'M LISTED IN SOME OTHER PUBLICATIONS.
Q     AND I BELIEVE, IN THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS--YOU SAY THAT'S BY INVITATION ONLY--IT'S RESTRICTED TO A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE PRACTICING TRIAL LAWYERS IN THE STATE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A     IT CANNOT BE MORE THAN ONE PERCENT OF ALL LAWYERS.
Q     IN FACT, I THINK YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HERE, SENATOR MARSHALL WILLIAMS, WHO'S ALSO A MEMBER OF THAT AUGUST GROUP.
A     I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH HIM.
Q     MY BOSS, AND WE'RE ALL PROUD OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
A     I ATTEND CONVENTIONS WITH HIM ANNUALLY.
Q     MR. WALLACE, FOR SOMEONE TO BE AS ACTIVE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW AS YOU HAVE BEEN, I WOULD IMAGINE, OVER THE 33 YEARS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE COURT FROM TIME TO TIME.
A     I AM.
Q     HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU SAY, OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS, YOU WERE, ON THE AVERAGE, IN COURT PER MONTH?
A     AS YOU GET OLDER, YOU SETTLE MORE AND MORE CASES, SO I GUESS I'M NOT IN COURT AS OFTEN NOW AS I USED TO BE. WHEN I WAS SOLICITOR, I WAS IN COURT EVERY DAY. I GUESS, IF YOU COUNT MOTIONS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, I'M IN COURT A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH, AT LEAST FEDERAL OR STATE--ONE OR THE OTHER--OR FAMILY COURT.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO BE IN COURT WITH MR. GARFINKEL, EITHER AS CO-COUNSEL OR OPPOSING COUNSEL?
A     I HAVE BEEN BOTH. I ALSO REPRESENTED MR. GARFINKEL IN HIS DIVORCE, WHICH I THINK IS SIGNIFICANT. YOU LEARN AN AWFUL LOT ABOUT A PERSON IN A DIVORCE CASE IF IT'S CONTESTED--
Q     RIGHT.
A     --AND--
Q     LET'S DIVIDE THIS ONE IN HALF--BECAUSE I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING ON THE DIVORCE, AND I GUESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THERE, OF MATTERS OF CHARACTER AND TEMPERANCE?
A     YES.
Q     BUT IN TERMS OF PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WITH MR. GARFINKEL AT TRIAL, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE HIS CAPABILITIES AND ABILITIES IN THE COURTROOM?
A     WHEN I WAS SOLICITOR, I THINK HE PROBABLY TRIED ONE OF HIS FIRST CASES AGAINST ME. I THINK THE CASE ENDED UP IN A PLEA SOMEWHERE DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL ITSELF, BUT I CERTAINLY RECALL HIM BACK THAT LONG AGO. WE HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED IN CASES TOGETHER, AND MY FIRM HAS HAD AT LEAST ONE CASE AGAINST HIM IN COURT. MY AREAS INCLUDE MORE THAN JUST THE FAMILY LAW, AND MR. GARFINKEL, AT LEAST IN RECENT YEARS, HAS BEEN--HAS HAD A HIGHER INTEREST AND A GREATER PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY LAW THAN I HAVE, SO I DON'T SEE HIM AS FREQUENTLY AS I HAVE IN THE PAST.
Q     WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF FAMILIAR WITH THE OTHER ATTORNEYS THAT PRACTICE IN AREAS THAT YOU PRACTICE IN, IN CHARLESTON, IN HAVING SOME GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEVEL OF QUALITY OF PRACTICE OF OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THE CHARLESTON AREA?
A     I DO.
Q     HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS MR. GARFINKEL'S CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE VIS-A-VIS THE OTHER AVERAGE ATTORNEY IN CHARLESTON THAT PRACTICES IN HIS AREA?
A     WELL, FIRST OF ALL, HE HAS HAD A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE IN THE FAMILY LAW, WHICH IS THE AREA THAT HE IS SEEKING SELECTION AS A JUDGE, BUT HE HAS ALSO HAD WHAT I THINK IS UNUSUALLY EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN MATTERS RELATING TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS. HE'S NOT, IN FACT, A JUDGE, BUT HE HAS BEEN AN ARBITRATOR UNDER THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION; HE HAS BEEN A SPECIAL REFEREE IN CIRCUIT COURT; HE HAS BEEN A JUDGE IN THE SENSE, IN OSHA VIOLATIONS. SO HE'S HAD EXPERIENCE BOTH AS A TRIAL LAWYER, AS WELL AS MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE EITHER JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL AND HE IS CERTAINLY WELL-QUALIFIED.

(SEN. MOORE JOINS THE PROCEEDINGS.)

Q     I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT YOU PRACTICE IN FEDERAL COURT FROM TIME TO TIME.
A     YES.
Q     HAVE YOU EVER HAD OCCASION TO PRACTICE BEFORE JUDGES SHEDD OR HAMILTON?
A     I HAVE NOT.
Q     ARE YOU GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH THEIR REPUTATIONS AS TRIAL JUDGES ON THE FEDERAL BENCH?
A     SINCE I HAVEN'T APPEARED BEFORE THEM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT.
Q     THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION IS THERE'S BEEN SOME CRITICISM OF MR. GARFINKEL FOR NOT HAVING PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE, AND ALSO THAT HE'S NOT HAD SIGNIFICANT TRIAL EXPERIENCE. I ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT NEITHER JUDGE SHEDD NOR JUDGE HAMILTON HAD SIGNIFICANT TRIAL EXPERIENCE BEFORE THEY ASSUMED THE FEDERAL BENCH.
A     THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN MY AREA OF THE STATE, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME.
Q     MR. WALLACE, YOU MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT YOU HAD REPRESENTED THE NOMINEE, OR THE APPLICANT, IN HIS DIVORCE. TELL US WHY YOU THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER HIS DEMEANOR, AS YOU OBSERVED IT, IN THAT CONTESTED MATTER?
A     ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT CONTESTED DIVORCES PROBABLY BRING OUT THE WORST IN HUMAN BEINGS. FROM A POSITION OF LOVE AND RESPECT AND HONESTY, LITIGANTS FREQUENTLY BECOME JUST THE OPPOSITE. THEY USE, FREQUENTLY, EVERY ADVANTAGE THEY CAN--INCLUDING CHILDREN--TO ADVANCE WHAT THEY PERCEIVE TO BE THEIR BEST INTERESTS. SO WHILE ADOPTIONS, PERHAPS, BRING OUT THE BEST IN HUMAN BEINGS, I THINK DIVORCES BRING OUT THE WORST IN THEM. SO I OBSERVE MANY, MANY PEOPLE AS ATTORNEY FOR THEM. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS SIGNIFICANT--AND I MADE A MENTAL NOTE OF IT--THAT MR. GARFINKEL WAS VERY UNUSUAL IN HIS APPROACH, AND HE WAS NOT AT FAULT. AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO ANY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

(REP. HODGES JOINS THE PROCEEDINGS.)

Q     YES, SIR.
A     BUT HE WAS A GENTLEMAN. HE USED THE PROPER RESTRAINT. HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HIS CHILDREN ALMOST TO A FAULT. HE WAS AN UNUSUAL PERSON.
Q     DO YOU NOT THINK THOSE WOULD BE GOOD QUALITIES FOR SOMEONE WHO WAS GOING TO ASSUME THE FAMILY COURT BENCH?
A     I THINK THEY WOULD BE VERY, VERY NECESSARY. AND HAVING BEEN THROUGH IT HIMSELF, I THINK HE WOULD HAVE AN INSIGHT INTO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING THROUGH.
Q     MR. WALLACE, WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION IN THEIR ASSESSING MR. GARFINKEL'S QUALIFICATIONS?
A     I WAS.
Q     CAN YOU TELL THIS COMMITTEE HOW MANY FOLKS INTERVIEWED YOU?
A     HOW MANY WHAT?
Q     HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE BAR INTERVIEWED YOU?
A     I WAS INTERVIEWED BY TWO MEMBERS OF THE BAR. A THIRD ONE HAD CALLED AND BEFORE I COULD RETURN THAT CALL, THE SECOND ONE CALLED, AND THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF MY INTERVIEW. SO I WAS INTERVIEWED BY TWO MEMBERS, BUT ONLY ONE MEMBER, AS I--I MAY BE WRONG. I THOUGHT ONLY ONE INQUIRED ABOUT MR. GARFINKEL. THE OTHER ONE INQUIRED ABOUT THE OTHER--AT LEAST THREE OTHER CANDIDATES FROM CHARLESTON. BUT I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT, BUT I WAS INTERVIEWED BY TWO MEMBERS.
Q     COULD YOU TELL THIS COMMITTEE WHERE THOSE BAR MEMBERS WERE FROM THAT TALKED TO YOU, THE TWO MEMBERS?
A     WELL, ONE, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM ABOUT. SHE WAS FROM COLUMBIA. THE OTHER ONE, I HONESTLY DON'T REMEMBER WHICH OF THE TWO CALLED ME.
Q     RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND.
A     SO I APOLOGIZE, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU.
Q     MR. WALLACE, WE'VE BEEN INFORMED BY THE BAR THAT THE BASIS OF THEIR RATING OF MR. GARFINKEL AS QUALIFIED, AS OPPOSED TO WELL-QUALIFIED, WAS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT: THEY KNEW HE HAD GOOD TEMPERAMENT AND GOOD SCHOLARSHIP, BOTH THINGS YOU'VE TESTIFIED TO TODAY. THE LIMITING FACTOR, AS THEY SAW IT, WAS THAT HE WAS ONLY MODERATELY EXPERIENCED AS A FAMILY COURT PRACTITIONER. WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID TO THOSE FOLKS THAT WERE DOING THE RATING FOR THE BAR?
A     NO. HOWEVER, IN ALL FAIRNESS, I TOLD BOTH BAR MEMBERS THAT I WAS SUPPORTING THE NOMINEE FOR THIS POSITION. I WANTED THEM TO KNOW THAT UP FRONT, BOTH WHEN THEY INQUIRED ABOUT OTHER CANDIDATES AS WELL AS WHEN THEY INQUIRED ABOUT MR. GARFINKEL, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONLY FAIR. AND IT MAY WELL BE THEY DISCOUNTED WHATEVER I HAD TO SAY, AS A RESULT. I TOLD THEM, HOWEVER, I WOULD BE VERY HONEST AND TRUTHFUL, REGARDLESS OF THAT FACT, BUT I WANTED THEM TO KNOW THAT FACT.
Q     MR. WALLACE, DO YOU AND MR. GARFINKEL HAVE ANY FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN COMMON? DO YOU SHARE A CASE NOW? DO YOU HAVE ANY PROPERTY YOU HOLD TOGETHER?
A     NOT AT ALL.
Q     SO YOUR SUPPORT OF MR. GARFINKEL, WHETHER IT BE BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TODAY--FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD YOU SAY--OR WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE SAID TO THE BAR IN TERMS OF YOUR SAYING, "I SUPPORT THIS CANDIDATE," IS NOT BASED UPON ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST THAT YOU PERSONALLY HAVE?
A     NONE WHATSOEVER.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT A COUPLE.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION OF HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE FAMILY COURT, HOW WOULD YOU RATE HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE FAMILY COURT?
A     I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE USING AS A SCALE, BUT HE HAS CERTAINLY BEEN VERY INVOLVED IN THE FAMILY COURT. HE DOESN'T LIMIT HIS PRACTICE TO FAMILY COURT MATTERS, AS SEVERAL PRACTITIONERS DO IN THE STATE, BUT VERY FEW PRACTITIONERS DO. OUT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER THAT PRACTICE IN FAMILY COURT, IT WOULD BE A VERY, VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE. BUT HE'S CERTAINLY VERY, VERY ACTIVE IN THE FAMILY COURT--MORE SO THAN THE AVERAGE PRACTITIONER IN CHARLESTON.
Q     HOW ABOUT IN TERMS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF FAMILY LAW? WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OPINION REGARDING YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF HIM AS TO HIS KNOWLEDGE?
A     HE'S WELL-QUALIFIED AND VERY COMPETENT. HE WAS A BIG HELP IN HIS OWN CASE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, WE THANK YOU FOR COMING.
WITNESS: AM I FREE TO LEAVE?
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. YES, SIR.
WITNESS: THANK YOU SO MUCH. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP, MR. WALLACE. WE APPRECIATE IT.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 9:46 A.M.)

MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE COULD GO OFF THE RECORD FOR JUST A MINUTE.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YES.

(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.)
(WITNESS SWORN; 9:47 A.M.)

WHEREUPON, WALTER S. AMEIKA, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: HAVE A SEAT, AND GOOD MORNING, AND WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU UP HERE WITH US.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: WOULD YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS MR. COUICK HAS GOT FOR YOU.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. AMEIKA, I BELIEVE YOU PRACTICE LAW IN THE CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, AREA.
A     THAT'S CORRECT, THE TRI-COUNTY AREA: BERKELEY, DORCHESTER, CHARLESTON.
Q     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN PRACTICE THERE?
A     I WAS ADMITTED TO THE BAR OF NEW JERSEY IN '74 AND THE BAR OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN '77, AND I'VE PRACTICED SINCE THEN.
Q     YOU'VE PRACTICED SINCE THAT TIME IN CHARLESTON, SINCE 1977?
A     RIGHT.
Q     AND WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY AREA OR AREAS OF PRACTICE?
A     TRIAL PRACTICE, TWO DIFFERENT AREAS: FAMILY COURT, IN THE RANGE OF 50 TO 75 CASES A YEAR. MY PEAK WAS IN 1982 OR '83 WHEN I DID OVER 120, AND I'VE--SINCE THEN--I DO A LOT OF LITIGATION INVOLVING TORT AND THINGS SUCH AS THAT. I AVERAGE, FILE OPENINGS A YEAR, ABOUT 150 FILES A YEAR.
Q     SO FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, I WOULD ASSUME YOU'RE IN THE FAMILY COURT OR THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FAIRLY OFTEN--
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     --IN THE TRI-COUNTY AREA?
A     I'M IN FAMILY COURT TWO TO THREE TIMES A WEEK, EVERY WEEK OF THE YEAR, SOMEWHERE. FOR EXAMPLE, I GET APPOINTED, AS WE ALL DO, IN BERKELEY AND DORCHESTER COUNTY IN THE FAMILY COURT. I'M ON THE CRIMINAL APPOINTMENT LIST IN CHARLESTON COUNTY. AND I HAVE REGULAR RETAINED CLIENTS THE REST OF THE TIME.
Q     WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF FAMILIAR WITH THE GENERAL LEVEL AND QUALITY OF PRACTICE OF ATTORNEYS IN THESE TWO AREAS, WHETHER IT BE PERSONAL INJURY OR FAMILY COURT LITIGATION, IN THE CHARLESTON/DORCHESTER/BERKELEY AREA?
A     ABSOLUTELY.
Q     HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO EITHER PRACTICE WITH OR AGAINST MR. GARFINKEL IN A COURTROOM SETTING?
A     YES, WE HAVE. HE AND I RECENTLY FINISHED AN EXTREMELY AGGRAVATING, ONGOING DOMESTIC LAWSUIT WHICH TOOK YEARS BECAUSE IT WAS A CONTINUATION OF A LAWSUIT--IF I MIGHT EXPLAIN, I BEGAN REPRESENTING THIS GENTLEMAN--THIS LADY, RATHER, IN 1981. TOOK HER THROUGH TWO DIVORCES AGAINST HIS CLIENT. THEN HE MARRIED ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WITH THE SAME FIRST NAME, SO WE HAD LADY "A" AND LADY "B," AND WE DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONE, BECAUSE--WHICH CASE IT WAS. AND THEN SHE DIVORCED THAT PERSON, AND THEN I WAS INVOLVED, AGAIN, THE THIRD TIME AGAINST HIM. AND THE THIRD TIME, I WAS THERE WITH MR. GARFINKEL, AND IT WAS INCREDIBLE BECAUSE THE PROBLEMS WERE THAT SHE BROUGHT MONEY IN THAT I HAD GOTTEN HER IN THE FIRST CASE--OR, NO, EXCUSE ME, THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. THIS LADY HAD MONEY FROM HER FIRST DIVORCE, CAME IN, COMMINGLED IT WITH HIS, LOTS OF DEBT, EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN. AND WE HAD SEVERAL HEARINGS, AND THEN WE HAD A LONG, LENGTHY MEDIATION IN HIS OFFICE, AND WE WERE ABLE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. A CASE WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE ASSUMED WE WOULD NEVER GET RID OF. AND, YOU KNOW, PAUL WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN THAT, TOO, BECAUSE BOTH OF THE CLIENTS WERE HOT-HEADS, AND THE LAWYERS REALLY HELPED, I THINK. AND PAUL SHOWED HIS KNOWLEDGE OF FAMILY COURT AND ALSO CAME UP WITH SOME INTERESTING WAYS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEMS, THE ECONOMICS. IT WAS ALL ECONOMIC ISSUES.
Q     WHICH OF THE TWO OF YOU ENDED UP WITH THE FILM RIGHTS TO THIS? MR. AMEIKA, IN OBSERVING MR. GARFINKEL NOT ONLY IN THIS PARTICULAR TRIAL MATTER, BUT ALSO IN OTHER COURTROOM SETTINGS, WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF HIS TRIAL EXPERIENCE AND HIS TRIAL CAPABILITIES?
A     I THINK HE HAS GOOD DEMEANOR IN THE COURTROOM. HE UNDERSTANDS THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW TO PUT THE THINGS IN AND HOW TO OBJECT, YOU KNOW, THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. BUT--AND HOW TO HANDLE HIMSELF IN THE COURTROOM. BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN, HE IS NOT FORMALISTIC TO THE EXTENT OF BEING PEDANTIC, WHICH, YOU KNOW, A FEW OF THE YOUNG LAWYERS ARE. AND AFTER THEY PRACTICE A WHILE, THEY REALIZE THAT DOESN'T GET ANYONE ANYWHERE. HE KNOWS THE RULES, APPLIES THE RULES, BUT DOES NOT USE THE RULES TO DESTROY THE DECORUM OF THE COURTROOM. HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING ON. ONE POINT ALONG THAT LINE IS, I THINK HE HAS AN EMPATHY FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON, THE AVERAGE JOE. THE THING I'VE NOTICED IN CHARLESTON, BERKELEY, AND DORCHESTER COUNTIES IS, I DO NOT REPRESENT LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOTS OF MONEY. PRIMARILY, THESE ARE MIDDLE-CLASS, WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN TRAILERS, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN RURAL AREAS. AND I THINK THAT HE HAS EXPERIENCED THAT FAR MORE THAN MOST PRACTITIONERS, BECAUSE OF WHERE HIS OFFICE IS LOCATED AND THE TYPE OF CLIENTELE HE DRAWS ON, AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE BECAUSE, AS A JUDGE IN THE FAMILY COURT, YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL KINDS; AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME COMPASSION; AND YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT--DON'T MAKE $100,000 A YEAR. THEY'RE TRYING TO GET BY ON $20,000, AND THEY'VE GOT THE KIDS AND ALL THE PROBLEMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO I THINK HE WOULD BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THAT QUITE WELL.
Q     WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION ABOUT THE CANDIDATE'S QUALIFICATIONS?
A     YES, I WAS.
Q     CAN YOU TELL US WHERE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO INTERVIEWED YOU--WHAT CITIES DO THEY PRACTICE IN?
A     I HAVE--WELL, I REALLY DON'T KNOW, AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IT WAS A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW. I SPOKE WITH A GENTLEMAN FROM A LARGE FIRM--AND I THINK IT WAS NELSON-MULLINS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN--AND THEY CALLED ME, AND I HAD LIKE THE EQUIVALENT OF A WATS LINE THAT I CALLED BACK ON. SO I WASN'T SURE WHETHER I WAS TALKING TO SOMEBODY IN CHARLESTON OR COLUMBIA OR WHEREVER. AND THE GENTLEMAN ASKED ME MANY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
Q     HOW LONG WAS THE INTERVIEW?
A     I TALKED TO HIM ON TWO OCCASIONS. THE FIRST TIME--I DON'T KNOW--TEN MINUTES, 15 MINUTES, ON THE PHONE. AND THEN THE SECOND OCCASION, IT WAS--I WAS AT MY JOHNS ISLAND OFFICE. I ALSO HAVE A VERY RURAL OFFICE OUT THERE. I WAS THERE, AND WE SPOKE THERE.
Q     IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INTERVIEW WITH THE BAR, DID YOU EVER TELL THE BAR THAT YOU CONSIDERED MR. GARFINKEL'S EXPERIENCE IN THE FAMILY COURT TO BE SOMEWHAT LIMITED?
A     NO.
Q     DID YOU, IN ANY OTHER WAY, NEGATIVELY CHARACTERIZE MR. GARFINKEL'S CAPABILITIES TO ASSUME THIS POSITION?
A     NO. I HOPE THAT WASN'T GARNERED OR PUT IN THERE.
Q     NO, AND I APOLOGIZE. I'M OBVIOUSLY READING FROM SOMETHING, AND YOU'RE NOT SURE WHAT I'M READING FROM.
A     RIGHT.
MR. COUICK: I'M READING FROM A PRESS RELEASE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WAS RELEASED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION YESTERDAY, IN WHICH THEY HAD GIVEN A SUMMARY OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE THEY RECEIVED ON THE CANDIDATES.
Q     AND UNDER MR. PAUL W. GARFINKEL, WITH A RATING OF QUALIFIED, THEY INDICATE THREE ITEMS IN THEIR SUMMARY: GOOD TEMPERAMENT, GOOD SCHOLARSHIP, MODERATELY EXPERIENCED IN FAMILY COURT PRACTICE. IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE YOUR SECOND-GRADE REPORT CARD, DOESN'T IT?
A     RIGHT.
Q     GOOD PENMANSHIP, BUT WON'T LISTEN, THAT SORT OF THING. THE REASON I ASK YOU THAT IS, THIS IS THE SUMMARY THAT THEY SAY FOLKS TOLD THEM, AND I'VE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANYBODY YET--AT LEAST IN MR. GARFINKEL'S CASE--THAT TOLD THEM THAT HE WAS ONLY MODERATELY EXPERIENCED AS A FAMILY COURT PRACTITIONER. THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION.
A     NO--WELL, I DON'T THINK I WAS EVER--LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'VE ASKED ME SOME QUESTIONS WHICH ALLOWED ME TO GET INTO SOME AREAS AND EXPLAIN THAT PARTICULAR CASE OR SOME OTHER THINGS WE'VE DONE. WE, FOR EXAMPLE, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I HAD A PROBLEM ON SOMETHING--I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS--AND I CALLED HIM UP AND ASKED HIM ABOUT IT, AND HE FAXED UP SOMETHING THAT HE HAD JUST DONE ON THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM, AND I WAS ABLE TO THEN MEET THE PROBLEM, WHICH WAS GOING TO BE IN COURT THE NEXT DAY, YOU KNOW. NO ONE ASKED QUESTIONS ALONG THAT LINE AS FAR AS WHAT HE KNOWS OR DOESN'T KNOW. AND HAVE I SEEN HIM IN COURT? YES. I'M SURE THAT WAS ASKED, BUT THINGS ALONG THE LINE THAT YOU ARE DIRECTING, NO.
Q     MR. AMEIKA, I MAY BE PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT A LITTLE BIT, AND I FAILED TO ASK THIS OF MR. WALLACE BECAUSE I KNEW HE WAS IN A HURRY TO GET OUT OF HERE. YOU'RE SITTING HERE TODAY; YOU KNOW, YOU'RE UNDER SUBPOENA. YOU'RE CERTAINLY HERE BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE INDICATED HE HAD LISTED YOU AS A REFERENCE. BUT IF YOU WERE TO TELL THIS COMMITTEE SOME QUALITY OR CHARACTER OF MR. GARFINKEL THAT WOULD ARGUE AGAINST HIS BEING ELECTED TO THE FAMILY COURT POSITION, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
A     IF I WERE TO COME IN HERE AND EXPLAIN OR THROW OUT A CONCEPT THAT--I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SOMETHING UP. I MEAN, I REALLY DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING--THAT HE'S GOT ANY NEGATIVES. I MEAN, HE'S COMPASSIONATE. SOME PEOPLE CAN SAY THAT'S BAD. I, FRANKLY, THINK HAVING A COMPASSIONATE JUDGE IS IMPORTANT. I DON'T THINK THE JUDGE NEEDS TO WAFFLE AND NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION--AND I DON'T THINK HE FITS IN THAT QUALITY. HE'S A COMPASSIONATE INDIVIDUAL WHO UNDERSTANDS, YOU KNOW, THE HUMAN CONDITION AND HOW TOUGH IT IS FOR EVERYBODY TO GET BY. I MEAN, HE'S BEEN THROUGH IT PERSONALLY WITH HIS OWN DOMESTIC.
Q     MR. AMEIKA, IF YOU CAN STRAIGHTEN OUT ONE LAST THING FOR ME. IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE--THOUGH IT BE QUITE LIMITED--THAT THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN CHARLESTON SEEMS TO BE A GOOD BIT DIFFERENT THAN IT IS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE, IN THAT THERE ARE NOT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF LARGE LAW FIRMS, AND THAT FOLKS WHO ARE VERY GOOD PRACTITIONERS SOMETIMES PRACTICE ALONE--
A     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q     --OR PRACTICE IN VERY SMALL OFFICES. IF YOU WERE TO COMPARE THAT AS A JUDGMENT STANDARD AGAINST OTHER PLACES IN THE STATE, IT MAY LOOK LIKE THIS PERSON IS NOT PART OF A LARGE, SUCCESSFUL LAW FIRM. WOULD THAT BE UNFAIR, IN YOUR OPINION, TO HOLD CHARLESTON TO THAT STANDARD THAT, IN ORDER TO BE A SUCCESSFUL ATTORNEY, YOU'VE GOT TO BE IN A LARGE LAW FIRM?
A     I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO BE. I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME SUPPORT. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE, IF YOU WANT TO GO ON VACATION OR IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMEBODY TO COVER FOR YOU, COVER YOUR HEARINGS. EXAMPLE: LAST WEEK I WAS UP IN DORCHESTER COUNTY AND COMMON PLEAS CALLED, LIKE JUST THIS MORNING, YOU KNOW, "BE HERE IN A HALF HOUR." AND I HAD TWO DOMESTICS THAT WERE GOING TO START IN SUMMERVILLE. AND THERE'S THREE FELLOWS IN OUR OFFICE, AND I HAD ONE OF THEM--I SAID, "HERE'S THE FILE, AND HERE'S THE DECREE, AND IT'S ONE YEAR, AND THIS IS THIS AND THAT AND THAT, AND EVERYTHING SHOULD GO OKAY, AND SEE YOU." AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT AS FAR AS HAVING A STABLE OF LAWYERS--TO BE CRUDE, I SUPPOSE, IN MY TERMINOLOGY OR DESCRIPTION OF A LARGE FIRM--I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY. I THINK, IF YOU HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE TOGETHER WHO HAVE A COMMON GOAL AND WHO HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS, YOU CAN BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. I THINK IT'S MORE DIFFICULT IF YOU'RE A SINGLE PRACTITIONER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF COVERAGE. BUT I THINK THE SINGLE PRACTITIONER, WHAT THEY DO IS THEY'VE GOT FRIENDS DOWN THE STREET WHO ARE EFFECTIVELY ADJUNCT PARTNERS OF THEIRS.
Q     YES, SIR, AND I GUESS MY QUESTION GOES MORE TOWARD, IF YOU WERE TO JUDGE THE SUCCESS OF AN ATTORNEY IN CHARLESTON, WOULD YOU NECESSARILY LOOK TO SEE HOW FAR UP HE WAS IN THE PYRAMID OF PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES IN A LARGE FIRM?
A     NO. WHAT I--FRANKLY, I WOULD SEE HOW HE REPRESENTS HIS CLIENTS, WHAT HE CAN DO IN THE COURT THAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE ATTEMPTING TO BECOME A JUDGE IN. FOR EXAMPLE, IN FAMILY COURT I THINK THAT ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS, TO START OFF WITH--WHENEVER SOMEBODY COMES IN MY OFFICE, I POINT OUT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE. NUMBER ONE, THERE'S THE FAULT AND THAT ISSUE, AND THE EMOTIONAL ISSUE; AND THEN THERE'S, SECONDLY, THE ECONOMIC ISSUE. AND THEN WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS HOW YOU DEAL WITH THE ECONOMIC ISSUES, AND YOU BREAK IT DOWN. SO AS FAR AS JUDGING SOMEBODY, HOW THEY OPERATE IS HOW THEY CAN GO IN THERE AND SERVE THEIR CLIENT WITHIN THE RULES AND WITHIN THE ETHICS OF THE SITUATION, TO PROVIDE A DECENT RESULT THAT NOT ONLY THAT HIS CLIENT CAN LIVE WITH--OR ONE'S CLIENT CAN LIVE WITH--BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT THE MARITAL UNITY WHICH IS BEING BROKEN UP CAN LIVE WITH. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE--IF YOU TAKE TOO MUCH FROM ONE SIDE OR MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE LOSING PARTY, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE BACK IN COURT IN A CONTEMPT SITUATION. SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A RESULT WHICH WILL BE FAIR, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A RESULT THAT'S FAIR, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A RESULT THAT'S GOING TO LAST, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE PEOPLE FOR THE NEXT 15 YEARS--WHICH I HAVE HAD SOME. I MEAN, IT'S JUST A BAD RESULT IN THE BEGINNING, AND YOU ARE WITH THEM FROM, YOU KNOW, 1978 THROUGH '91. I JUST FINISHED ONE LIKE THAT. SO DETERMINING WHERE SOMEONE IS IN THE PYRAMID, I DON'T THINK HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. I THINK WHERE SOMEONE IS IN DEALINGS WITH THE PEOPLE, MOVING THE CASES, GETTING A DECENT RESULT FOR HIS CLIENT, THAT'S THE THING THAT IS OF CONCERN.
Q     DO YOU RECALL IF ANYBODY WHO INTERVIEWED YOU WAS FROM CHARLESTON?
A     NO, I DON'T THINK THE PERSON WAS FROM CHARLESTON.
Q     THE REASON I ASK THIS, MR. AMEIKA, YOU KNOW, AND I ADMIT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN CHARLESTON--WITH ALL APOLOGIES TO MY CHAIRMAN. I WOULD IMAGINE IT'S LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN CHARLESTON; IT'S A GOOD BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF THE STATE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ETHNOCENTRISM AMONG THE BAR, IN THAT IT'S OUTSIDE AND PROBABLY OUGHT TO BE CHARACTERIZED AS (INDICATING) "FOREIGN TERRITORY," IN MAKING AN ASSESSMENT ON HOW THINGS ARE IN GREENVILLE OR COLUMBIA, PARTICULARLY IF THE REPRESENTATIVES ARE FROM BIG FIRMS. I DON'T MEAN TO HIT ON THIS TOO HARD, BUT WOULD THAT NOT BE A PROBLEM, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF HOW YOU WOULD VIEW THINGS, IF YOU CAME TO COLUMBIA OR GREENVILLE?
A     IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A PROBLEM IF I CAME TO COLUMBIA OR GREENVILLE. BUT THE THING IS, THIS JUDGE IS GOING TO BE SITTING IN THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT--WHICH IS IN MONCK'S CORNER AND CHARLESTON--THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE TIME. AND YES, HE'LL TRAVEL AND HE'LL BE ON ASSIGNMENT IN VARIOUS AND SUNDRY PLACES, BUT MOST OF HIS TIME WILL BE SPENT THERE, WHERE--FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE AN EXTENSIVE MOTION PRACTICE IN CHARLESTON COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY HAVE THAT UP HERE OR NOT. MENDEL RIVERS WAS THE ONE WHO INSTITUTED THAT. IN THE OLD DAYS, BACK IN THE LATE SEVENTIES OR EARLY EIGHTIES, USED TO USE THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE. I MEAN, SOMETIMES YOUR CLIENT WOULD LEAVE, KISS HIS WIFE GOODBYE IN THE MORNING, AND THERE'S A RESTRAINING ORDER; HE'S OUT OF THE HOUSE; EVERYTHING IS DONE BY THE AFTERNOON WITH NO HEARING. I MEAN, THOSE WERE THE DARK DAYS. THEY WERE TERRIBLE. BUT TIMES HAVE CHANGED. THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE COURT THAT I HAVE SEEN--YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT--HAS CHANGED IMMENSELY. THE FAMILY COURT IS A REAL COURT NOW, AND YEARS AGO, I MEAN, IT WAS SHOOT BY THE HIP. YOU DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW ANY LAW. IT WASN'T THAT IMPORTANT. I MEAN, YOU WENT IN THERE AND ARGUED AND SAT DOWN. BUT NOW YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A HANDLE ON WHAT'S GOING ON. THAT EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION STATUTE THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO, I MEAN, THAT HAS REVOLUTIONIZED THE ENTIRE THING. THE CONCEPT OF WHETHER OR NOT NAVY PENSIONS VEST AT 18 YEARS OR 20 YEARS OR WHETHER YOU CAN GET A SHARE OF THAT. BUT I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'VE NOTICED AMONG OUR JUDICIARY IN CHARLESTON, IS THEY ARE REALLY UP ON WHAT'S THERE, AND I THINK MR. GARFINKEL FITS INTO THAT. AND AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE STATE, I DON'T KNOW. I'VE ONLY HAD A HEARING BEFORE A MASTER IN COLUMBIA TEN YEARS AGO, AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME I'VE EVER LEFT MY ENCLAVE.
Q     ONE LAST QUESTION, MR. AMEIKA. DO YOU SHARE ANY FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH THE CANDIDATE?
A     NO. I HAVE EATEN DINNER WITH HIM. I'VE GONE OUT WITH HIS WIFE. I KNOW HIM.
Q     THIS IS AFTER THEY WERE MARRIED, OR BEFORE?
A     HIS PRESENT WIFE. BEEN OUT TO DINNER SOCIALLY. WE'VE BEEN TO SEMINARS, AND NOT THAT WE'VE GONE TOGETHER, BUT WE'VE RUN INTO EACH OTHER LIKE IN ATLANTA, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND HAD A PLEASANT EXPERIENCE.
Q     DO YOU SHARE ANY CASES NOW?
A     NO, I HAVE NO CASES WITH HIM. I HAVE SHARED, ON OCCASION, A FEW CASES WITH SOME MEMBERS OF HIS FIRM. WITH PAUL GIBSON, I DID A CASE FIVE YEARS AGO, SIX YEARS AGO.
Q     NOW, I UNDERSTAND HE'S NOT ACTUALLY IN A FIRM.
A     RIGHT, IN THE GROUP. AND WITH MR. LANE WHO'S IN THERE. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I JUST, YOU KNOW, HAVE A FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIP.
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     LET ME ASK YOU JUST A COUPLE, REAL QUICK. IN TERMS OF HIS EXPERTISE IN THE FAMILY COURT AREA, I, AGAIN, AM LOOKING AT THE SHEET THAT WAS GIVEN OUT BY THE BAR IN THE FORM OF A PRESS RELEASE YESTERDAY, AND I NOTED THAT THEY GIVE A RATING ON TWO OF THE CANDIDATES IN EXPERTISE, BUT DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MR. GARFINKEL'S EXPERTISE. SO WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON HIS LEGAL EXPERTISE IN THE FAMILY COURT AREA?
A     THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS WHAT I'VE OBSERVED. HE HAS NOT WRITTEN ANY ARTICLES THAT I REMEMBER. HE'S NOT WRITTEN ANY LAW REVIEW ARTICLES. HE'S NOT DONE ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SO I HAVE TO COMMENT ON THE OCCASIONS THAT I HAVE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT FAMILY LAW AND/OR THE SEVERAL CASES WE'VE HAD TOGETHER AND EXPERIENCES WHEN I'VE GIVEN HIM A CALL AND SAID, "HEY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS OR THAT?" AND I THINK IT'S EXCELLENT--I MEAN, IN MY EXPERIENCE IN DEALING WITH HIM.
Q     THE OTHER THING I NOTICED IN THE PRESS RELEASE WAS A CLASSIFICATION ON TWO OF THE OTHERS AS HARDWORKING. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HIS WORK ETHIC?
A     WELL, ONCE AGAIN, I HAVE TO HAVE THE INITIAL CAVEAT, I SUPPOSE, THAT I'M NOT AROUND HIM ALL THE TIME. BUT HE SEEMS TO BE A HARDWORKING FELLOW, BECAUSE THINK ABOUT--HE'S DOING MORE THAN MERELY THAT. I BELIEVE HE'S INVOLVED WITH A FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON OSHA REGULATIONS; HE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OF SORTS ON THAT. HE'S INVOLVED IN THE MEDIATION GROUP. SO HE'S DOING MORE THAN--HE'S ALSO INVOLVED WITH VARIOUS FRATERNAL GROUPS AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, SO HE'S INVOLVED ALL OVER THE PLACE. I ASSUME, BASED UPON THAT, THAT HE IS HARDWORKING.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ANY QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. YOU'RE FREE TO GO. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 10:05 A.M.)

MR. GOLDEN: IS THAT COFFEE AVAILABLE TO US?
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YES, SIR.
MR. GOLDEN: IS IT ANY GOOD?
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT.
MR. COUICK: YOU'RE ASKING FOR TOO MUCH, NOW, MR. GOLDEN.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: LET'S SEE. MR. JOHN M. BLEECKER, JR. GOOD MORNING, MR. BLEECKER. HOW YOU DOING?
MR. BLEECKER: GOOD MORNING, SENATOR.

(WITNESS SWORN; 10:07 A.M.)

WHEREUPON, JOHN M. BLEECKER, JR., HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE. IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE PEOPLE FROM DOWN OUR AREA THAT SPEAK LIKE WE DO. THEY GIVE US A HARD TIME UP HERE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE DON'T TALK EXACTLY THE SAME. PLEASE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MR. COUICK'S GOT.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. BLEECKER, YOU'VE PRACTICED IN THE CHARLESTON COUNTY AREA FOR SOME TIME, I BELIEVE.
A     I'VE PRACTICED IN CHARLESTON SINCE 1960. I GRADUATED FROM THE UNIVERSITY, BECAME A LAW CLERK TO A FEDERAL JUDGE, AND STAYED IN CHARLESTON; MARRIED A LOCAL GIRL.
Q     WHAT JUDGE DID YOU CLERK WITH?
A     JUDGE ASHTON WILLIAMS. HE'S FROM LAKE CITY.
Q     YES, SIR. AND YOUR PRACTICE OF LAW IS WHAT AREA THERE IN CHARLESTON?
A     WELL, I'VE DONE--I'VE BEEN PRACTICING FOR 33 YEARS, WHICH IS HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE, BUT I'VE DONE ABOUT EVERYTHING IN THAT 33 YEARS THAT A LAWYER COULD POSSIBLY DO. TODAY, I AM SOMEWHAT LIKE BOB WALLACE. I'VE GOTTEN OLDER, AND MY CLIENTS HAVE GOTTEN--UNLIKE WALTER AMEIKA, MY CLIENTS HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE WEALTHIER. I REPRESENT BUSINESS CLIENTS; I REPRESENT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS. I ALSO--I HATE TO LET LOOSE OF CALLING MYSELF A TRIAL LAWYER; BUT, HONESTLY, I'M LESS AND LESS IN COURT. I DO PRACTICE IN THE FAMILY COURT. I DO TAKE FAMILY COURT CASES. AND I WOULD SAY, IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR, I PROBABLY HAVE TEN OR 20 FAMILY COURT CASES. I'M ON THE APPOINTMENT LIST AT THE FAMILY COURT IN CHARLESTON. THE BAR ASSOCIATION DIVIDES UP THOSE WHO WILL BE APPOINTED TO THE CRIMINAL SIDE AND THOSE WHO WILL BE APPOINTED FOR PRO BONO IN THE FAMILY COURT. SO I'M ON THE FAMILY COURT LIST. I REGULARLY GO DOWN THERE FOR APPOINTED CASES, USUALLY CHILD ABUSE AND THINGS LIKE THAT BROUGHT BY D.S.S.
Q     WOULD YOU ASSESS YOUR ABILITY TO VIEW OTHER ATTORNEYS IN PRACTICE--BE IT IN THE COURTROOM OR IN OTHER AREAS THAT ATTORNEYS DO, WHETHER IT BE MEDIATION, OR WHATEVER--AS BEING PRETTY GOOD OVER THIS 33-YEAR PERIOD? HAVE YOU SEEN A LOT OF ATTORNEYS?
A     I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF ATTORNEYS. I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF JUDGES.
Q     MR. BLEECKER, IN THE COURSE OF THIS, YOU PROBABLY--I WOULD IMAGINE--HAVE DEVELOPED SOME OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT MAKES A GOOD ATTORNEY AND WHAT MAKES A GOOD JUDGE. TELL ME, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT MAKES A GOOD JUDGE, PARTICULARLY A FAMILY COURT JUDGE.
A     WELL, I THINK KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND YOU SEEM TO HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THAT. I DON'T THINK--IN ALL DEFERENCE TO MR. GOLDEN, WHO IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE NATION'S EXPERTS--I DON'T THINK THAT FAMILY LAW IS ABOVE THE REACH OF AN AVERAGE LAWYER TO UNDERSTAND IT. SO YOU CAN LEARN A LOT OF THINGS IN TRIAL STRATEGY AND THINGS LIKE THAT OVER THE YEARS, WHICH I CERTAINLY THINK IS IMPORTANT, BUT FROM THE JUDICIARY SIDE, I THINK YOU CAN GET A PRETTY GOOD HANDLE ON THE LAW, ON THINGS LIKE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION. THE JUDGES I SEE--AND I KNOW ALL OF THEM--AND THE JUDGES I SEE HAVE GOT A GOOD HANDLE ON THE LAW, AND THEY GET THAT FROM SIMPLY BEING IN PRACTICE. YOU GIVE ME A FELLOW WHO'S BEEN OR IS BEING ON THE BENCH--IF YOU GIVE ME A FELLOW WHO'S BEEN ON THE BENCH A YEAR OR SO, IF HE HAS THE OTHER QUALITIES THAT ARE IMPORTANT, THEN HE'LL MAKE A GOOD JUDGE.OTHER QUALITIES--AND I THINK ONE OF THE PRIME QUALITIES, OF COURSE, IS TO CARE, IS TO BE CONCERNED, AND TO CARE AND BE CONSISTENT IN YOUR RULINGS. BEING A MORAL PERSON; NOT BEING A FELLOW WHO COMES IN AND SAYS, "WELL, I LIKE THIS LAWYER BETTER THAN I LIKE THAT LAWYER, SO I'M GOING TO LAY ON HIS SIDE OF THE CASE." LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN IN PRACTICE ANY LENGTH OF TIME DON'T WANT THAT. I WANT TO GO INTO THE COURTROOM; I WANT TO KNOW THAT JUDGE IS GOING TO GIVE ME A FAIR SHOT. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF HIS FIRST COUSIN IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CASE. I WANT HIM TO CALL IT LIKE HE SEES IT FROM THE FACTS AND THE LAW. I THINK PAUL, WHO I HAVE KNOWN, I GUESS EVER SINCE HE STARTED PRACTICING IN CHARLESTON, SINCE 1970--I THINK PAUL IS A VERY MORAL PERSON. I HAVE OBSERVED HIM; HE FREQUENTLY HAS CALLED MY OFFICE JUST TO QUESTION ME ABOUT WHAT I THINK, WHAT MY VIEWS ARE OF SOME ASPECT OF THE LAW. AND IN THAT TIME, I HAVE GOTTEN TO KNOW HIM.AT ONE TIME, I THINK I REPRESENTED HIS SYNAGOGUE--WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN A ZONING ISSUE, AND I WAS INVOLVED IN THE ZONING ISSUE--AND I BELIEVE HE IS PRESIDENT OF HIS SYNAGOGUE GROUP. BUT I GOT TO KNOW HIM JUST, I THINK, VERY WELL AS TO THE MEASURE OF THE MAN, THE CALIBER OF THE MAN, WHAT HE BELIEVED AND WHAT HE THOUGHT AND THE FAIRNESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. AND I APPLAUD THAT. AND TO LAY ON HERE THAT, AS I SEE, WHAT YOU'VE HEARD AS THE NEWSPAPER REPORT THAT HE IS NOT QUALIFIED BECAUSE HE HASN'T BEEN IN THE FAMILY COURT A LOT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AT ALL. BECAUSE I THINK THAT--WELL, NUMBER ONE, I THINK THAT HE IS PROBABLY WELL-QUALIFIED IN THE FAMILY LAW. BUT THE OTHER PART, I THINK THAT HIS EXPERIENCE IN LIFE, HIS HAVING BEEN A LAWYER FOR 23 YEARS, AND--AS MR. WALLACE TALKED ABOUT--HIS DIVORCE, I THINK THAT IS SAYING--IT'S A BAD THING FOR ANYONE TO SUFFER THROUGH, I KNOW, BUT IT'S GOOD EXPERIENCE IN LIFE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I SEE, WHEN YOU APPOINT PEOPLE TO THE BENCH WHO DON'T HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE IN LIFE--AND I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A DIVORCE TO BE IN THE FAMILY COURT, BUT TO LIVE THROUGH LIFE, TO RAISE CHILDREN, AND TO GO THROUGH THE PROBLEMS THAT CHILDREN HAVE COMING UP, AND TO JUST SEE WHAT GOES ON AROUND YOU WITH YOUR CLIENTS; THAT, YOU KNOW, I LIKE THAT VERY MUCH. AND OF COURSE, I'M SPEAKING FROM 33 YEARS, AND I WISH I WERE WISER WHEN I WERE YOUNGER. BUT THAT, I THINK, IS A VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IN APPOINTING JUDGES. I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD APPOINT ANCIENT JUDGES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T THINK YOU OUGHT TO APPOINT BABY JUDGES. WE'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN IN CHARLESTON. FELLOWS THAT ARE VERY AMBITIOUS AND COME ALONG, AND THEY WANT TO GET ON THE COURT, AND SOMETIMES THEY'VE DONE QUITE WELL. BUT THERE ARE OCCASIONS--AND I DON'T WANT TO MENTION NAMES HERE, BUT THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN I THINK THAT YOUTH AND INEXPERIENCE IN LIFE HAS HURT, AND WE HAVEN'T ALWAYS GOTTEN THE BEST JUDGES BECAUSE OF THAT.
Q     MR. BLEECKER, YOU TALKED A GOOD BIT ABOUT MR. GARFINKEL'S MORAL QUALITIES AND HIS SUITABILITY FOR BEING A JUDGE BECAUSE OF THAT, BUT I THINK WE ALL REALIZE THAT IT TAKES MORE THAN THAT TO BE A GOOD JUDGE. AND I DON'T DISMISS WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID, BUT I DO WANT TO GO FURTHER AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIS ABILITIES AS A PRACTITIONER IN THIS AREA. HAVE YOU HAD AN OCCASION TO VIEW HIM IN THE COURTROOM?
A     I HAVE BEEN--YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE YEARS I'VE BEEN IN THE COURT, I'VE SEEN HIM IN COURT; I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM DO ANYTHING BUT THE PRACTICAL THING THAT A LAWYER WOULD DO. I DON'T SUPPOSE HE'S ANY GRAND, ELOQUENT LAWYER, BUT I THINK HE'S A PRACTICAL, CONSISTENT, EVERYDAY, HARDWORKING LAWYER.
Q     AND YOU MENTION HE'S AN EVERYDAY, HARDWORKING LAWYER. IF SOMEONE WERE TO WALK UP TO YOU AND SAY, "MR. BLEECKER, I'VE HEARD THAT PAUL GARFINKEL IS RUNNING FOR JUDGE, AND I HEAR ALSO HE'S GOT LIMITED TRIAL EXPERIENCE," WHAT WOULD BE YOUR REACTION TO THAT STATEMENT?
A     I WOULD QUESTION THAT. I WOULD DOUBT THAT. I THINK HE'S GOT QUITE A BIT OF TRIAL EXPERIENCE. I KNOW THAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE AS TO HIS ABILITIES IN THE COURTROOM.
Q     MR. BLEECKER, FINALLY, WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS?
A     YES, I RECEIVED ONE TELEPHONE CALL FROM A YOUNG LADY WHO--I DON'T REMEMBER HER NAME, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE WAS CALLING FROM. I THOUGHT SHE WAS CALLING FROM COLUMBIA, BUT I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT. AND I TALKED TO HER ABOUT TEN MINUTES.
Q     AT ANY POINT DURING THAT CONVERSATION, WOULD YOU HAVE SAID ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE LED HER TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MR. GARFINKEL WAS ONLY MODERATELY EXPERIENCED AS A FAMILY COURT PRACTITIONER?
A     NO. NO.
Q     JUST SO THIS COMMITTEE HAS A FULL RECORD, IS THERE ANYTHING NEGATIVE THAT YOU GAVE TO THE BAR THAT DAY THAT YOU COULD SHARE WITH THE COMMITTEE TODAY, ABOUT MR. GARFINKEL'S CAPABILITIES?
A     I DON'T THINK SO. WE TALKED ABOUT HIS HEALTH. THAT SEEMED TO BE WHAT SHE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
Q     AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS GONE THROUGH THAT AS WELL. WE HAD OUR FIRST INTERVIEW, WHICH Y'ALL HAVE NOT HAD THE BENEFIT OF. WE SPENT A GOOD BIT OF TIME WITH MR. GARFINKEL GOING OVER SOME HEALTH CONDITIONS THAT HE DOES HAVE.
A     (NODS HEAD.)
MR. COUICK: MR. BLEECKER, I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY VERY MUCH. MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN McCONNELL:

Q     I JUST HAVE TWO QUICK QUESTIONS FOR YOU. IN TERMS OF HIS WORK ETHIC--AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE PRESS RELEASE, BUT I NOTICE THAT THEY HAD THOSE COMMENTS ABOUT TWO OTHER CANDIDATES. I'D LIKE TO KNOW, HOW WOULD YOU CLASSIFY HIS WORK ETHIC? IS HE A HARD WORKER OR NOT?

(REP. ALEXANDER JOINS THE PROCEEDINGS.)

A     OH, YES. YES, YES. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN CASES WITH HIM, AND HE'S UP ON THE FACTS; HE'S UP ON THE LAW. SO THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
Q     THAT WOULD BRING ME TO THE SECOND ONE, WHICH IS EXPERTISE IN THE LAW.
A     YES.
Q     HOW WOULD YOU RATE HIS EXPERTISE IN FAMILY MATTERS?
A     I WOULD SAY IT'S VERY HIGH, SENATOR.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. ANY MEMBER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. COUICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ONE I FAILED TO ASK.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: ALL RIGHT.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     DO YOU HAVE ANY SHARED FINANCIAL INTEREST WITH THE CANDIDATE--
A     NO.
Q     --BE IT A CASE, PROPERTY, SECURITIES, ANYTHING?
A     I'VE NO CASES WITH HIM, AND I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH HIM.
MR. COUICK: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU. WE SURE APPRECIATE YOU COMING, AND YOU'RE FREE TO GO.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: YES, SIR.

(WITNESS EXCUSED; 10:16 A.M.)

MR. COUICK: MR. GOLDEN IS NEXT, I BELIEVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: MR. HARVEY L. GOLDEN.

(WITNESS SWORN; 10:16 A.M.)

WHEREUPON, HARVEY L. GOLDEN, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
CHAIRMAN McCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR. HAVE A SEAT. GOOD MORNING. SORRY TO KEEP YOU WAITING. PLEASE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MR. COUICK HAS FOR YOU.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q     MR. GOLDEN, YOUR BEING HERE TODAY IS NOT A RESULT OF MR. GARFINKEL LISTING YOU AS A CHARACTER REFERENCE THAT HE GAVE TO THE BAR. I ASKED FOR YOU TO COME BECAUSE YOU WERE LISTED AS SOMEONE THAT HE HAD WORKED FOR AT SOME POINT IN HIS CAREER. IN FACT, I THINK IT WAS VERY EARLY IN HIS CAREER WHEN HE WAS A LAW CLERK.
A     BEFORE HE HAD A CAREER.
Q     BEFORE HE HAD A CAREER. I TAKE IT, YOU PROBABLY CLAIM THAT YOU MADE HIS CAREER.
A     PROBABLY DID. PROBABLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM GOING AS FAR AS HE HAS.
Q     MR. GOLDEN, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY--AND I WILL NOT RUN YOU THROUGH THE LITANY OF QUESTIONS I'VE ASKED OTHER ATTORNEYS TO ESTABLISH YOUR CREDIBILITY AS AN ATTORNEY IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE RECOGNIZED NATIONWIDE AS BEING ONE OF THE PREEMINENT FAMILY COURT--
A     IN LIEU OF THAT--YEAH, IT WOULD SOUND VERY IMMODEST OF ME FOR ME TO REGALE YOU FOR 20 MINUTES WITH THINGS THAT I HAVE DONE--I CAN SEND YOU MY C.V. AND WOULD BE PLEASED TO DO THAT.
Q     I THINK THE COMMITTEE CAN JUST TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT YOU ARE AN ACCOMPLISHED FAMILY COURT PRACTITIONER.
A     THAT'S ALL YOU'RE GOING TO SAY? I MEAN, NOT THE DEAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA DIVORCE LAWYERS. I MEAN, NOTHING LIKE THAT?
Q     YOU MAY PUT ON THE RECORD WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE. MR. GOLDEN, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE MR. GARFINKEL SINCE HE WORKED FOR YOU AS A LAW CLERK?
A     YEAH, I'VE BEEN VERY INTERESTED. YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT I PRACTICE LAW IN ALL 16 CIRCUITS OF THE STATE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY DOMESTIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONER WHO DOES THAT AND HAS DONE IT FOR MAYBE MORE THAN 20 YEARS OUT OF THE 38 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN PRACTICING. ALL OVER, LITERALLY, GEOGRAPHICALLY, AND I AM IN CHARLESTON A LOT. AND YOU'VE GOT A ZOO IN THE OUTER WAITING ROOM IN CHARLESTON, AND I SIT THERE AND SEE WHO COMES AND GOES. I DON'T THINK I'VE--MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE--I HAVE NOT SEEN PAUL THERE. WHEN I HAVE SEEN HIM THERE AND HE HAS GONE AHEAD OF ME, I TRY TO SNEAK IN THE BACK. NOW, IT'S NEVER ON A CASE ITSELF; IT'S ALWAYS ON A MOTION OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
Q     RIGHT.
A     BUT I'M VERY PROUD OF HIM. I THINK THE WORLD OF HIM. AND SO I'VE SNEAKED IN AND LISTENED TO HIM MAKE THOSE ARGUMENTS ON MOTIONS AND PENDENTE LITE ARGUMENTS. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
Q     EXACTLY THAT. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE HIM?
A     YEAH.
Q     AND I THINK YOU'VE GONE ON TO MY NEXT QUESTION, AND--
A     YEAH, AND I'VE ALSO SENT HIM CASES. I CONSIDER HIM WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE SIX OR SEVEN LAWYERS IN CHARLESTON WHO I DO SEND CASES TO.
Q     AND I GUESS YOU WOULD SEND IT TO THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR PROFICIENCY?
A     YEAH. NO OTHER REASON. AND I MAY HAVE SENT HIM MORE CASES THAN ANN STERLING, AND MORRIS AND ROBERT ROSEN, AND MENDELSOHN, AND CHARLIE GOLDBERG AND A COUPLE OF OTHERS.
Q     DO YOU SHARE ANY CASES--
A     BOB WALLACE. I'VE SENT CASES TO BOB.
Q     DO YOU SHARE ANY CASES NOW?
A     NO.
Q     SO DO YOU HAVE ANY SHARED FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH HIM NOW?
A     NO.
Q     MR. GOLDEN, YOU'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION, I BELIEVE.
A     I SIT ON THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF THE A.B.A., AND I'M PAST NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE A.B.A. FAMILY LAW SECTION.
Q     I WOULD THINK, IN THOSE CAPACITIES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO CONTACT WITH BOTH THE RATING SYSTEM THAT THE A.B.A. HAS DEVELOPED FOR FEDERAL JUDGES, AND AT LEAST HAVE A PASSING FAMILIARITY WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AND WHAT HAS BEEN DEBATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR FOR SOME TIME IN TERMS OF THE RATING OF JUDGES.
A     YEAH, I'VE KNOWN ALL OF THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNIFIED FAMILY COURT SYSTEM, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE SOME OF THE YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPERS THAT YOU'VE RECENTLY BROUGHT IN, AND I KNOW A LOT OF THOSE BECAUSE I WAS CHOSEN TO BE ONE OF THE PRACTITIONERS WHO TAUGHT NOT ONLY MANDATORY JUDICIAL C.L.E. FOR A LONG TIME, BUT ALSO SOME OF US WERE PICKED TO LECTURE TO THE BABY JUDGES ON ORIENTATION--BABY FAMILY COURT JUDGES. SO, THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM.
Q     BUT IN TERMS OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BAR AND BAR SELECTION OR BAR SCREENING OF JUDGES, THE QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IS, THIS HAS BEEN A CONTROVERSIAL PROCESS THIS TIME AROUND. IT'S BEEN HOTLY DEBATED. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ACCUSATION THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS RESENTFUL OF THE BAR HAVING AN ACTIVE ROLE; THE BAR, I THINK, FEELS SOMEWHAT THAT THEY PROBABLY HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE PROCESS. BUT LOOKING AT IT AS AN OUTSIDER, TO SOME DEGREE, WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THIS COMMITTEE CAN DO AND WHAT SHOULD IT DO WITH THE BAR RATINGS, INSOFAR AS THEY COME TO THIS COMMITTEE WITHOUT ANY REAL IDENTITY ATTACHED TO THE COMMENTS MADE? WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TREATMENT THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD GIVE TO IT?
A     I THINK SOUTH CAROLINA HAS THE FINEST JUDICIAL FAMILY COURT SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY, AND I LECTURE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND I'M ALWAYS TOUTING OUR SYSTEM. I THINK THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS NEEDED TO IMPROVE IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE ACTIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND ALSO THE INTEGRATION OF AN EFFECTIVE SCREENING. I AM ASTOUNDED THAT THE SCREENING COMMITTEE OF THE BAR, WHICH I'VE JUST LEARNED TODAY, FOUND HIM LIMITED IN HIS EXPERIENCE. I MEAN, THAT IS UNBELIEVABLE TO ME. HE IS ONE OF THE MORE ACTIVE FAMILY COURT PRACTITIONERS IN CHARLESTON WHO I KNOW, AND WHERE I PRACTICE A LOT. SO I'M ASTOUNDED THAT THEY, OF THE--I DON'T KNOW--1,000 LAWYERS IN CHARLESTON--WE HAVE 1,700 HERE; I GUESS THEY HAVE 1,000 THERE--AND OF 100 OR 150 OR 200 WHO PRACTICE FAMILY LAW DOWN THERE, I'M ASTOUNDED, AND I WOULD BE ASTOUNDED IF HE WERE NOT IN THE TOP FIVE PERCENT. SO THAT REALLY AMAZES ME, WHICH I HEARD TODAY FO