Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 12:00 Noon, the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

Beloved, hear a simple and profound word from the First Epistle of St. John (4:16ff):

"God is love; and he that dwelleth

in love dwelleth in God, and

God in him...

And this commandment have we from Him,

That he who loveth God, love his brother

also."
Let us pray.

Lord of earth and Heaven, we know the advantage of knowledge... and we seek to inform ourselves on the facts of the issues that come before us.

We know the advantage of the skills and the arts of politics. Help us to use these skills wisely.

But... most of all, heavenly Father, help us to be aware and willing to use the technique prescribed by St. John and St. Paul who summed up the matter for every age... even for our age... in the words of the King James version:

"And now abideth faith, hope and charity;

these three,

But the greatest of these is charity!"

Amen.

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

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.

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.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: OPPOSED SAY NAY.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: OPPOSED BY NAY.

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)

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?

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THOSE OPPOSED BY SAYING NAY.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: SO DONE.

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?

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?

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.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THOSE OPPOSED BY SAYING NAY.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: I THANK Y'ALL FOR COMING.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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---

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.

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.

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---

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 BEFOR