| Printed Page 1230, Mar. 21 | Printed Page 1250, Mar. 26 |

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Judge Clary has been an adjunct professor of Business Law at Limestone College with teaching responsibilities in general business and commercial law. He has also been a Moderator/Panelist for the Circuit Judges Forum at the South Carolina Defense Attorneys Annual Meeting in 1994.

The Joint Committee found Judge Clary to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

(3) Professional Experience:

Judge Clary graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1974 and was admitted to the Bar in 1975.

From 1974 to 1975, Judge Clary was Minority Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security and Legislative Assistant to Senator Strom Thurmond. He was an adjunct professor of Business Law at Limestone College from 1976 to 1986. He had a private practice as an associate of J.P. Askins from 1975 to 1976. This practice included administrative law, workers compensation, insurance, public utility, hospital and health care, corporate, real estate law and civil and criminal trials. He was a sole practitioner from 1976 to 1980, a partner in the firm of Hall, Daniel, Winter, & Clary from 1980 to 1991, and a sole practitioner from 1991 to 1992. Judge Clary was elected a Circuit Court Judge in 1992.

Judge Clary described his practice before being elected Circuit Court Judge as 65% civil, 5% criminal, and 30% domestic.

Judge Clary provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:

(a) State vs. Tanner - (Williamsburg County) Court of General Sessions.

(b) Thomas vs. Bryson Chevrolet Olds, Inc. (80-CP-11-82).

(c) Sossamon Construction Company vs. General Signal, a Division of BIF Corporation, (81-CP-11-304) JR, 15,472.

(d) Hambright vs. Peeler, (82-CP-11-68) JR, 810.

(e) Newton vs. Clement Brothers, (84-CP-11-84).

Judge Clary handled the following civil appeals:

(b) In re: Zaman, 329 S.E.2d 436, 285 S.C. 345 (Sup. Ct. 1985).

(c) National Health Corporation d/b/a National Health Care Center of Charleston vs. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, North Charleston Convalescent Center, Inc. and Cadam Corporation d/b/a/ Southeastern Geriatric and Rehabilitation Hospital, (S.C. Ct. App. not reported) (87-CP-40-4387). Settled prior to final hearing.

Judge Clary considers the following to be his most significant orders or opinions:

(a) The State vs. Johnny Babe Ray, Jr., (90-GS-42-3918).

(b) The State vs. Wade Parris, 96-MO-035 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed January 26, 1996).

(c) Adams, et al. vs. Texfi Industries, et al., Op. No. 24340 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed November 6, 1995) (1994, S.C. App.) 443 S.E.2d 913, Reh. Den. (June 16, 1994).

(d) Justice vs. BMG Distribution, Inc., et al., Op. No. 24235.

(e) Lentczner vs. Winthrop University, (93-CP-46-426).

The Joint Committee determined that Judge Clary had engaged in an active trial practice in the trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication. He has also served with distinction as a Circuit Court Judge in South Carolina.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Clary's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Judge Clary 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 Clary is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Clary appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Clary has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Judge Clary served in the U.S. Air Force Reserve from 1968 to 1969. He received an Honorable Discharge.

Judge Clary is active in professional activities.

(9) Ethics:

Judge Clary 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 Clary testified that he is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Judge Clary 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:

Judge Clary meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Clary qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Clary "has markedly broad experience in the law from his seventeen (17) years of private practice in administrative law, worker's compensation law, insurance law, public utility law, hospital and health care law, corporate law, real estate law, and civil and criminal litigation. He has been an adjunct professor of business and commercial law at Limestone College for ten (10) consecutive years. Furthermore, he has had significant experience in the judicial system by having served as Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat #5, since 1992. Judge Clary is highly respected by the vast majority of Bar members contacted for his impartiality, judicial temperament, legal skills, promptness, and industry in his work as Circuit Court Judge. He is viewed as an individual of exemplary character and integrity. By the overwhelming majority of those surveyed, Judge Clary was felt to possess outstanding

Judge Clary was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. The candidate's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of Judge Clary's public hearing. The Committee has included these responses soley for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Judge Gray was screened on March 20, 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. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Judge Gray's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Judge Gray demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality.

Judge Gray reported that he was named as a defendant in Jerry Screen v. Cassandra Green et al., 92-CP-06-96. The case was about a minor's claim in a structured settlement. Judge Gray stated that he represented one of the parties to the structured settlement.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Judge Gray has lectured at the New Family Court Judges Orientation on "Handling Pro Se Litigation" in July 1995.

The Joint Committee found Judge Gray to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Gray was graduated from South Carolina State University Law School in 1963 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Gray practiced with Ernest A. Finney before he was drafted in 1963, part-time from 1965 to 1971, full-time until Justice Finney's election to the bench, and then with associates until July 1992.

Judge Gray described his practice before being elected Family Court Judge as 50% civil, 25% criminal, and 25% domestic.

Judge Gray provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:

(a) S.R. Barton et al. vs. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Case tried in U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Cite not available.

(b) State vs. Freeman Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, ___S.E. ___(___).

(c) Finney & Gray vs. S.C. Public Services Authority, 284 S.C. 397, ___S.E.2d___(___).

(d) Joseph Johnson vs. Henderson, 279 S.C. 132, ___, ___S.E.2d ___(___).

(e) American Bankers vs. L.C. Frederick, Op. No. 2030, at trial level.

Judge Gray has handled the following civil appeals:

(a) S.C. Insurance Co. vs. White, 301 S.C. 133, ___S.E.2d___(___).

(b) Suburban Propane Gas Company vs. DesChamps, 298 S.C. 230, ___S.E.2d___(___).

(c) S.R. Barton et al. vs. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Court of Appeals.

(d) Joseph Johnson vs. Henderson, 279 S.C. 132, ___, ___S.E.2d___(___).
(e) Elijah Montgomery vs. Social Security Administration, U.S. District Court.

Judge Gray has handled the following criminal appeals:

(a) In re Shaw, 274 S.C. 534, ___S.E.2d___(___).

(b) State v. Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, ____S.E.___(___).

Judge Gray considers the following to be his most significant orders or opinions:

(a) Patricia Ann Freeman vs. Ashby O. Freeman, Docket No. 92-DR-08-2717, Op. No. 95-UP-222 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995).

(b) Norman Henslee vs. Victoria S. Henslee, Docket No. 93-DR-08-1449.

(d) Susan Newman vs. John Lee Newman, Docket No. 93-DR-43-2139.

(e) Susan L. Jessen vs. Eric C. Jessen, Docket No. 93-DR-1924, Op. No. 95-MO-183 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1995).

In response to a request of the Joint Committee, Judge Gray provided the following additional professional experience as indicative of his trial practice prior to his service as a Family Court Judge:

(a) Barton v. Department. This case involved a condemnation action by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

(b) State v. Poinsett. A criminal action challenging the legality of service of a warrant on a Sunday.

(c) Finney & Gray vs. S.C. Public Service. Condemnation action.

(d) Johnson v. Henderson. Negligence case in which an auto struck a child riding a moped. The case was appealed on the basis of an incorrect verdict being entered. The Supreme Court reversed.

(e) American Bankers vs. Frederick. Agency case wherein the Plaintiff alleged that the agent caused loss of business because of his actions.

The Joint Committee determined that Judge Gray had engaged in an active trial practice in the trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication. He has also served with distinction as a Family Court Judge in South Carolina.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Gray's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Judge Gray 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 Gray is married and has three children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Gray appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Gray has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Judge Gray served in the U.S. Army from 1962 to 1965. He received an Honorable Discharge.

Judge Gray is active in professional activities.

(9) Ethics:

Judge Gray 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 Gray testified that he is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Judge Gray 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:

Judge Gray meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Gray qualified for service on the Court of Appeals. The Bar reported that Judge Gray has "an excellent work ethic and reputation for diligence which has apparently served well in control of his docket and timely issuance of orders. He is respected for his fairness, ability to recognize issues, and evenhanded disposition of matters before him. Judge Gray is of unquestioned character and integrity. Members of the Bar interviewed were unanimous that he is fair and not influenced by litigants or counsel. In general, he is well thought of by attorneys who have appeared before him."

Judge Gray was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. The candidate's actual response to each of these questions is included in Judge Gray's transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of

Judge Gray was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. The candidate's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of Judge Gray's public hearing. The Committee has included these responses soley for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Judge Howard was screened on March 20, 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. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Judge Howard's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Judge Howard demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Judge Howard has taught numerous CLE courses, new judge classes, and conferences for the S.C. Defense Attorneys' Association.

The Joint Committee found Judge Howard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.

(3) Professional Experience:

Judge Howard graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Judge Howard was appointed as an acting judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals in August 1994 and served until June 1995.

Judge Howard provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders or opinions which he listed as follows:

(a) State v. Susan Smith, June 1995. Order proscribing publication of mental competency report.

(b) In re the Estate and Last Will and Testament, John D. Muller, Jr. The Evangelical Lutheran Charities Society of Charleston, South Carolina vs. South Carolina National Bank as Trustee of the Charitable Testamentary Trust Created Under the Last Will and Testament of John D. Muller, Jr., 91-CP-10-2766, January 3, 1995.

(c) W.O Thomas, Jr., et al. vs. Cooper River Park and Playground Commission, et al., 93-CP-10-1647, November 17, 1995; Order after Petition for Reconsideration, December 16, 1994.

(d) John and Lorna Osborne, Eric Staton, and L.E. Spence vs. Glen P. Carver, Claude Surface, C&S Properties of Beaufort, Inc. and Standard Federal Savings & Loan Association, 87-CP-07-1491.

(e) Charles M. Condon, as Solicitor, Ninth Judicial Circuit vs. All that certain lot, et al., 91-CP-10-1410.

Judge Howard listed civil and criminal appellate opinions he has handled as follows:

(a) Southern Contracting vs. H.C. Bryon Const., ___S.C.___, 450 S.E.2d 602 (Ct. App. 1994).

(b) Jefferies vs. Phillips, ___S.C.___, 451 S.E.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1994).

(c) Wright vs. Marlboro County School District, ___S.C.___, 452 S.E.2d 12 (Ct. App. 1994).

(d) Sanders vs. Emery, ___S.C.___, 452 S.E. 2d 636 (Ct. App. 1994).

(e) Pearson vs. Church of God, Op. No. 2336 (Ct. App. 1995).

Judge Howard provided the following criminal appeals he has authored:

(b) City of Columbia vs. Moore, Op. No. ___ (Ct. App. 1995).

(c) State vs. Sammie Brown, Op. No. 2338 (Ct. App. 1995).

(d) State vs. Brownlee, Op. No. 2313 (Ct. App. 1995).

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Howard's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Judge Howard 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 Howard is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Howard 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 Howard has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Judge Howard was a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves from September to December 1973. He was honorably discharged.

Judge Howard has been active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Judge Howard 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.

| Printed Page 1230, Mar. 21 | Printed Page 1250, Mar. 26 |

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:57 P.M.