Printed Page 2600, May 14
| Printed Page 2620, May 14
|
Printed Page 2600, May 14
| Printed Page 2620, May 14
| 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.
(10) Miscellaneous:
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.
After graduating law school, Judge Mendelsohn was an associate with the Steinberg firm in Charleston from 1965 to 1966, and has been a sole practitioner from 1967 to present. His practice includes litigation in all areas: Family Court, real estate, criminal, and probate.
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.
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.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
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.
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.
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:
a) Wadford v. Pipkin, Civil Action Nos. 92-CP-08-695 and 92-CP-08-696 (unreported) (Circuit Court). Judge Pieper found this case interesting because it involved two persons that apparently veered of the main roadway and ended up on the premises if the defendant, who held the two at gunpoint and threatened to kill the plaintiffs. The case was tried on issues of false arrest, trespassing, malicious prosecution, and outrage. Judge Pieper would particularly note that the case involved a scope of a "citizen's arrest", an area of the law in which there was not much appellate guidance at the time.
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
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.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
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
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.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified/(Majority)
Unqualified (Minority: Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Senator John R. Russell)
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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 reveal some evidence that raised questions.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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. Ms. Reddix-Smalls did not fully answer the Committee's Personal Data Questionnaire on a timely basis.
The Joint Committee is also concerned about an incident in which an associate of Ms. Reddix-Smalls' attended the public hearing of another candidate despite admonitions given to each candidate about such activity. Ms. Reddix-Smalls denied any prior knowledge about her associate's plan to attend the public hearing. The Committee feels that Ms. Reddix-Smalls and other candidates should take responsibility for informing the people with whom they discuss their screening of the
-----------------------------------
[1] Rep. Hunter Limbaugh did not vote.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls stated that she taught Constitutional Law and Administrative Law at South Carolina State University from 1991 to 1993, and has taught Criminal Justice/Police Procedures at Midlands Technical College for one year.
The Joint Committee found Ms. Reddix-Smalls to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls has never applied for a Martindale-Hubbell rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1976. Ms. Reddix-Smalls was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in 1977 and the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
After her graduation from law school, Ms. Reddix-Smalls was in private practice with Mordecai Johnson from 1978 to 1979 and she served as Executive Director of Carolina Regional Legal Services from 1978 to 1987. Ms. Reddix-Smalls was an associate with John Roy Harper from 1988 to 1989 and Edwards and Associates from 1989 to 1991. Presently, she is a partner at Reddix-Smalls and Carter, which was formed in 1991.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls described her practice over the past five years as 60 to 75% civil, 10 to 15% criminal, and 30% to 35% domestic.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(1) County-wide annexation, secession attempt case combined with voting rights issues. Franklin v. Campbell (U.S. Federal District Court) #95-1370.
(2) School Secession and Desegregation case in Williamsburg County. (U.S. District Court)
(3) Case involving appeal of sale of heirs property, requesting partition in kind or by allotment. Cox v. Frierson, 90-CP-21-1170, S.C. Supreme Court, verdict pending.
(4) Capital offense murder case. State v. Belin, (Citation Omitted)
(5) Death penalty case involving minor defendant. State v. Brunson, (Citation Omitted)
(7) Fraud case, involving mortgage of elderly woman's property by her son. Shepherd v. First American Mortgage Co., (Citation Omitted)
(8) Truth in Lending, Fraud, Financing and Mortgage Disclosure case. Thomas v. Delta Mobile Homes, (Citation Omitted)
(9) Banking disparities in lending and financing case. Settled for plaintiff prior to trial. McFadden v. Bank of Clarendon, 2-92-0737
(10) Federal mortgage disclosure requirements case. McQueen v. FHA, 4:92-1064-21 (U.S. District Court)
(11) Breach of warranty, breach of contract, and attorney's fees case. Trial August 1995; motion for reconsideration pending. Carter v. Rogers, 93-CP-40-4716.
(12) Bad faith claim involving insurance company which refused to pay proceeds when plaintiff's spouse killed in barroom brawl. Williams v. Fidelity Life and Guaranty, 93-CP-33-44, (U.S. District Court)
(13) Taxpayers' suit challenging validity and correctness of a local property millage levy. Tisdale v. Williamsburg County School District, (Citation Omitted)
(14) Standing and jurisdiction case involving plaintiff demands for an accounting by a non-profit organization. Montgomery v. State Conference of Branches, et al., (Citation Omitted)
(15) Divorce and disability benefits case involving Agent Orange and Agent White victim spouse. Thomas v. Jailette, (Citation Omitted)
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided the committee with seven cases involving appeals which she has personally handled:
(a) Cox v. Frierson, 90-CP-21-1170 (S.C. Supreme Court-Circuit Court)
(b) Davis v. Davis, 92-DR-40-2456 (Supreme Court-Family Court). Divorce and child support case.
(c) Mapp v. Mapp, 92-DR-40-6187, S. C. Supreme Court. Separate maintenance, alimony, and equitable distribution case.
(d) Shepherd v. First American Mortgage Co., (citation omitted), S.C. Supreme Court. Mortgage rescission case.
(e) Tisdale v. Williamsburg County, 90-CP-45-09. Challenge of tax levy by taxpayers group.
(f) Franklin v. Campbell, remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to the District Court for appeal to the 4th Circuit.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided, at the Joint Committee's request, a supplemental list of 17 matters representative of her civil practice. Ms. Reddix-Smalls also detailed her civil motion and criminal practice. This information was incorporated into the record and is located in the transcript of Ms. Reddix-Smalls public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Reddix-Smalls has engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
In a previous screening, Ms. Reddix-Smalls stated that she was cited for contempt of court by a probate judge in Florence County in 1986. Ms. Reddix-Smalls further stated that she would now have handled the matter differently.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
The Committee found Ms. Reddix-Smalls' diligence and industry satisfactory for her service on the Circuit Court bench.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Reddix-Smalls has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Printed Page 2600, May 14
| Printed Page 2620, May 14
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:58 P.M.