Printed Page 3460, May 14
| Printed Page 3480, May 14
|
Printed Page 3460, May 14
| Printed Page 3480, May 14
|
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Judge Eckstrom was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Eckstrom demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Eckstrom was an instructor of Constitutional Law at the City College of Chicago in 1984; an instructor of Business Law at the City College of Chicago in 1985; an adjunct instructor of Criminal Law and Procedure at Midlands Technical College in 1994 and 1995; an instructor of Government Ethics and Standards of Conduct for the U.S. Navy from 1992-1994; an Instructor of Rules of Procedure for Court Administration (training for new probate judges) in 1992; and an Instructor of Judicial Ethics at a JCLE for the S.C. Probate Judge's Association Conference in 1993.
The Joint Committee found Judge Eckstrom to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Eckstrom graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1982 and the South Carolina Bar in 1983.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Eckstrom has worked as a judge advocate for the Department of the Navy from 1982 to 1986; as sole legal counsel for the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department from 1986 to 1990; as an associate for Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard, LLP in 1990; and as Judge of the Probate Court for Lexington County from 1991 to present.
a) United States v. Melendez; criminal jury trial in military court; drug case involving opposing scientific experts, and scientific evidence including urinalysis testing by radio-immunoassay and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Won acquittal after defending case on basis of faulty test procedures, inconsistent test results, and character trait evidence admitted under Military Rule of Evidence 404.
b) United States v. Stodahour; criminal jury trial in military court; ATM fraud and larceny case; used optically enhanced still photos in the courtroom, taken from financial institution's video monitor. Won acquittal after defending the case on basis of mistaken identification.
c) Ken Murray, d/b/a Old Saw Mill Company v. South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department; Plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Jury found for plaintiff on his claim and for defendant on counterclaim. While case was on appeal, Judge Eckstrom petitioned S.C. Supreme Court under former S.C. Supreme Court Rule 24 to seek relief from judgment in the trial court, based on after-discovered evidence due to mistake or fraud on the part of plaintiff. Supreme Court granted the motion, and judgment against defendant agency was reduced by trial court, resulting in withdrawal of appeal.
d) Norris v. South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department; Defendant suit in U.S. District Court brought under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. Plaintiff sought compensatory wages, overtime wages and liquidated damages from state agency employer. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of defendant before the Honorable G. Ross Anderson, Jr. The central issue was the effective date minimum wage and overtime provisions of FLSA applied to public employers as a result of Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 105 S.Ct. 1005 (1985).
e) United States v. Kauffman; Defended former service member in trial by general court martial. Defendant was apprehended by law enforcement officials after nearly twenty year desertion. Waived trial by jury. Citing exceptional and thorough case in extenuation and mitigation in sentencing phase, trial judge imposed no confinement even though three year sentence was authorized.
Judge Eckstrom provided the Committee with the following civil appeals which he personally handled:
a) Ken Murray, d/b/a Old Saw Mill Company v. South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department; Successful post-trial motion
b) While admitted under the student practice rule, prepared returns and motions to dismiss, and successfully represented State of South Carolina in four (4) civil Post Conviction Relief proceedings in Court of Common Pleas, 1982.
Judge Eckstrom provided the Committee with the following significant orders or opinions:
a) Sandra Marie Garrick v. Billy Guy Bailey, Jr. and Ronald S. Bailey, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Billy Guy Bailey, Sr.; Case No. 90-ES-32-00823. This case involved several claims against the estate. Plaintiff, an alleged common law spouse of the deceased, sought reimbursement for sexual services on a quantum meruit theory of recovery. That claim was denied on the basis that such contracts would be void as a matter of public policy.
b) Charles J. Rogers, Jr. v. Jennifer R. Chumley; Case No. 91-GC-32-00052 and 00053. These protective proceedings demonstrated the broad equitable powers of the probate court to correct a wrong. A durable power of attorney, previously recorded in accordance with statute, was declared void ab initio, and a prior real estate transfer using the purported power of attorney was set aside and title was returned to the estate of the protected person.
c) Judy C. Allen. Personal Representative of the Estate of James D. Heckman v. H. Lee Heckman; Case No. 91-GC-32-00090; Affirmed on appeal, C.A. No. 95-CP-32-1727. This case decided ownership of funds in a joint tenancy survivorship account after one joint tenant, the sole depositor, was determined to be incapacitated. Recognizing the existence of a fiduciary duty, the order held that the joint owner with capacity no longer possessed full discretionary rights to the account when his joint tenant became incapacitated. The case was affirmed on appeal.
d) In the Matter of Trevor O'Draeda Jones, a minor; Case No. 88-GC-32-00049. Order and Sentence for Criminal Contempt of Court against J. Michael Fullwood, Esq. This case demonstrates the contempt powers of the probate court. The attorney for a court appointed conservator was convicted and sentenced in the probate court on four counts of criminal contempt of court for his intentional and wrongful filing of four false and misleading accounting with the probate court. The defendant was sentenced to the maximum period of confinement for criminal contempt, to run concurrently with a related federal court sentence.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Eckstrom's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Eckstrom was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Eckstrom is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Eckstrom appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Eckstrom has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Eckstrom is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Eckstrom testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Eckstrom testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Eckstrom testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
Judge Eckstrom meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Eckstrom qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Eckstrom "has an excellent reputation for running his court in a courteous, professional and impartial manner. He has excellent judicial temperament and is generally perceived as always trying to `do the right thing' in ruling on sensitive issues which come before him. His office is operated efficiently. While some concern was expressed about the extent of his Circuit Court trial experience, those interviewed did not feel that this would prevent him from performing satisfactorily as a Circuit Court Judge. His character, integrity and reputation are above reproach."
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Judge Mendelsohn was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Mendelsohn demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Mendelsohn to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Mendelsohn's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Mendelsohn graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1964 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Judge Mendelsohn has served as municipal judge for the City of Charleston from 1976 to present, and recently began serving as municipal judge for the Isle of Palms in addition to his service for the City of Charleston.
Judge Mendelsohn described his practice over the past five years as 55% civil, 10% criminal, and 35% domestic.
Judge Mendelsohn provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
a) USA v. Russell - Drug trial before jury. No appeal. Case had interesting legal questions. In addition, client would not cooperate.
b) USA v. Bauer - Drug conspiracy trial. Client did not appear for trial. Judge Mendelsohn was required to protect client's interests, which were represented by an empty chair. This was a difficult task.
c) USA v. Disharoon - Murder on military reservation. Not a usual case for Federal Court. At sentencing, twelve year old son admitted guilt. Judge gave new trial. Convicted again at second trial.
d) Heyning v. Small - Auto accident, with no property damage. Got verdict (small) for client. Two day trial was strongly resisted by defendant (insurance carrier).
e) Von Allmen v. DSS and Cox and Williamson - Termination of parental rights and adoption. Very emotional. Legal issues concerning parental remediation. DSS obligation to put parents back with child.
Judge Mendelsohn provided the Committee with the following civil appeals which he has personally handled:
a) Fielding v. S.C. Election Commission, 305 S.C. 313, 314, 408 S.E.2d 232.
b) Forsythe v. Forsythe, 290 S.C. 253, 254, 349 S.E.2d 405.
c) Porcher v. Porcher, 289 S.C. 200, 345 S.E.2d 737.
d) Arnold v. Arnold, 285 S.C. 296, 297, 328 S.E.2d 924.
e) Olson v. Olson, 278 S.C. 258, 294 S.E.2d 425.
Judge Mendelsohn reported that the opinions in the Municipal Court are generally rendered without a written order.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Mendelsohn's temperament would be excellent.
Judge Mendelsohn was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Mendelsohn is married and has one child.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Mendelsohn appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Mendelsohn has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Mendelsohn is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Mendelsohn testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Mendelsohn testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Mendelsohn testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The South Carolina Bar will issue its report on candidates offering for the Ninth Circuit before the election.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Judge Pieper was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Pieper demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Pieper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Pieper graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1984 and was admitted to the Bar in May 1985. He also received a Masters of Law (LL.M.) in Taxation from New York University School of Law in August 1986.
After graduating from law school, Judge Pieper was a law clerk for United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr from March 1985 to August 1985; the Senior law clerk for U.S. District Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. from the fall of 1986 to the fall of 1988; he was associated with another lawyer under the name of Pieper and Stokes from August 1988 to December 1990; career law clerk to U.S. District Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. from the summer of 1990 to the summer of 1993, and assisted Judge Blatt once a week from the summer of 1993 to the summer of 1995; part-time Berkeley County magistrate from April 1989 to October 1991; and Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge from June 1993 to present.
As a current judge, Judge Pieper omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years.
Judge Pieper provided the Committee with the following significant orders or opinions:
b) State of South Carolina v. Paul Winn, 93-CP-08-1770 (unreported) (Circuit Court). This case was an appeal from a lower court that Judge Pieper heard as Special Circuit Judge. This opinion contains a good discussion of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Based on the facts of the case and the applicable law, he concluded that the magistrate correctly denied a motion to dismiss based on an alleged 31-month delay.
c) Dennis v. Murphy, 93-CP-08-382 (unreported) (Circuit Court). Breach of oral agreement case. The order has a good discussion of the law of constructive trusts.
d) McGinnis v. Berkeley County School District, 94-CP-08-746 (unreported) (Circuit Court). Student alleged sexual encounter with his teacher and sued the school district based on gross negligence in supervision of its employee and of its students. The order involves a detailed discussion of the S.C Tort Clams Act and various statutory provisions impacting on the case.
e) Smith v. Island Dirt, Inc., 93-CP-08-908 (unreported) (Circuit Court). Appeal from Workers' Compensation Commission. Involved a novel issue of law in regard to the point at which interest accrued on the award of compensation, with particular concerns on the procedural problems in the case.
The Committee expressed some concern as to the brevity of Judge Pieper's experience as a trial lawyer.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Pieper's temperament would be satisfactory.
Judge Pieper was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Pieper is single.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Pieper appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Pieper has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Pieper is a member of the South Carolina Bar Association and is an honorary member of the Berkeley County Bar Association.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Pieper testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Pieper testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Pieper testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The South Carolina Bar will issue its report on candidates offering for the Ninth Circuit before the election.
Printed Page 3460, May 14
| Printed Page 3480, May 14
|