| Printed Page 400, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 420, Feb. 6 |

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.

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

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

The Bar found Judge Howard qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Howard "has significant experience in the judicial system having served as Circuit Court Judge since July 12, 1988, for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. He also was appointed as Acting Judge for the Court of Appeals from August 1994 until June 1995. He is respected by an overwhelming

Judge Howard 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. Judge Howard's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely 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

Mr. Huff was screened on December 11, 1995, 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.

Mr. Huff demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.

In 1994 a matter was brought before the State Ethics Commission regarding an advertisement during Senator Ryberg's runoff race in 1992. The matter was concluded after another defendant filed a Statement of Organization and Campaign Disclosure Form.

Mr. Huff provided that he has given the legislative updates for the Family Law Section of the Trial Lawyers Association in 1989, 1990, and 1992, a seminar on SC Insurance and tort law update to Professional Education Systems, and a lecture to the Bar Association on the new Adoption statute and Equitable Apportionment statute in 1986.

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

Mr. Huff's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Huff graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1975 and was admitted to the Bar in 1977 after taking the Bar Exam three times.

Since 1977, Mr. Huff has been a sole practitioner with a general civil practice with an emphasis in domestic litigation, tort litigation, limited criminal defense work, and real estate.

Mr. Huff described his practice over the past five years as 15% civil, 10% criminal, and 75% domestic.

Mr. Huff provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:

(a) Barnes v. Barnes, 276 S.C. 519, 280 S.E.2d 538 (1981). Family Court appeal which established that living in separate rooms in same home does not constitute living separate and apart.

(b) City of Aiken, SC Municipal Association, and SCE&G v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc., Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc, and the South Carolina Public Service Authority, 90-CP-02-377 (1990). Case dealt with the issues of territorial assignment, franchises and annexation of assigned areas.

(c) Edens v. Estate of Lillie S. Matthews, pending. Case addresses application of Dead Man Statute and enforcement of an oral contract.

(d) Perry v. Greenlawn Memorial, et al. Case dealt with spouse's right to control burial over the deceased's remains.

(e) Trenton Aviation v. Connelly, Case involved liability of county run airport to privately owned plane that was negligently tied down.

Mr. Huff listed the following five appeals that he has personally handled:

(b) Espinosa v. Espinosa, Court of Appeals 1991.

(c) Seigler v. Seigler, Court of Appeals 1993.

(d) Ngyuen v. Uniflex, 312 S.C 417, 440 S.E.2d 887 (1994).

(e) Bazzle v. Huff, Court of Appeals 1995.

Mr. Huff has handled no criminal appeals.

In response to a request of the Joint Committee, Mr. Huff provided the following additional professional experiences as indicative of his appellate practice:

(a) City of Aiken v, Aiken Electrical Cooperative, Inc., et al., 305 S.C. 466, 409 S.E.2d 403 (1991).

(b) Berry v. Ianuario, 286 S.C. 552, 335 S.E.2d 250 (1985).

(c) Army Navy Bingo Garrison No. 2196 v. Plowden, 281 S.C. 226, 314 S.E.2d 250 (1984).

(d) Barnes v. Barnes, 276 S.C. 519, 280 S.E.2d 538 (1981).

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Huff had engaged in an active trial and appellate practice in the courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Huff's temperament would be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Huff 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.

Mr. Huff is married and has one child.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Huff 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. Mr. Huff has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Huff is active in professional and community activities.

Mr. Huff 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.

Mr. Huff testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Mr. Huff 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:

Mr. Huff meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Huff qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Huff "has been a practicing attorney with a well-rounded general practice. He has both family court and civil trial experience. In recent years, he has gained appellate court experience. Representative Huff had difficulty with the South Carolina Bar exam and missed passing by one point on his first two tries. He was successful on the third try. This may be the source of concerns, particularly during the previous candidacy of 1993, that he lacked the necessary scholarship. It does not appear to be a concern of most of those interviewed now, the large majority of whom considered him to be a hard working, honest attorney."

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Lightsey was screened on December 11, 1995, 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.

Mr. Lightsey demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. Lightsey has lectured extensively on appellate and ethical issues to various Bar conferences and educational and business groups.

Mr. Lightsey has authored or edited the following articles:

(a) Chairman and Contributing Author, South Carolina Jurisprudence, Libel and Slander (1993);

(b) Contributing Author, South Carolina Jurisprudence, Appeal and Error (1992);

(c) Lightsey, A Critique of the Promise Model of Contract, 26 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 45 (1984);

(d) Note, Disengaging Sales Law from the Sales Construct: A Proposal To Extend the Scope of Article 2 of the UCC, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 470 (1982).

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

Mr. Lightsey has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Lightsey graduated cum laude from Harvard University Law School in 1983 and was admitted to the Bar in 1986.

Mr. Lightsey served as executive editor of the Harvard Law Review from 1982 to 1983.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Lightsey has clerked for Judge Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals from 1983 to 1984, Chief Justice Burger of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1984 to 1985, and has been employed as an Associate and Member of the firm of Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham since 1986.

Mr. Lightsey described his practice over the past five years as 96% civil, 2% criminal, and 2% domestic.

Mr. Lightsey provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:

(a) Weston et al. v. Carolina Research & Development Foundation, et al., 303 S.C. 398, 401 S.E.2d 161 (1990). Case established the doctrine that a private foundation which receives and directs the expenditure of public funds is subject to the disclosure provisions of FOIA;

(c) Gamble v. Stevenson et al., 305 S.C. 104, 406 S.E.2d 350 (1991). Wreck case in which one defendant cross-claimed against other 2 defendants and received a substantial verdict for punitive damages against them. On appeal, the S.C. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the punitive damage award and set forth the standards which now govern judicial review of punitive damages in South Carolina;

(d) Multimedia Publishing Co. et al. v. Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District et al., 774 F. Supp. 977 (D.S.C. 1991), aff'd, 991 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1993). Case involved plaintiff's First Amendment right to place newsracks in the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport. Trial judge ruled for newspaper and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed;

(e) Woven Electronics Corp. v. The Advance Group, Inc., 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6004 (4th Cir. 1991). Case involved misappropriation of trade secrets.

Mr. Lightsey has personally handled the following appeals:

(a) Horn v. Davis Electrical Constructors, currently pending in the South Carolina Supreme Court. Prior History: 302 S.C. 484, 395 S.E.2d 724 (Ct. App. 1990), aff'd in part & rev'd in part, 307 S.C. 559, 416 S.E.2d 634 (1992), on remand, 440 S.E.2d 398 (Ct. App. 1994). Case involved questions of whether employee has a cause of action when doctors place restrictions on activity that make employee incapable of performing his job, and whether Court has discretion of ordering reinstatement as a remedy.

(b) Weston v. Greenville County School District, settled on appeal after briefing to S.C. Supreme Court in 1992. Issue was whether a public body's conducting an election by secret ballot violated the FOIA;

(c) Shoaf v. Warlick, 298 S.C. 415, 380 S.E.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1989). Case involved issues of whether a person who is an officer and director of a corporation occupies a fiduciary position, whether that duty was breached for selling stock at a

(d) Republic Textile Equipment Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 293 S.C. 381, 360 S.E.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1989). Case involved issue of whether Insurance company should be held responsible for the negligence of an insurance agency in explaining and handling an insurance policy;

(e) Ex parte the State-Record Co., in re Access to Family Court Records, settled on appeal after briefing to the S.C. Supreme Court in 1988. Child custody and support action involving Joe Morrison. Issue was whether there was a compelling reason to order the entire record sealed and whether there may have been a less restrictive alternative to completely sealing the entire record.

Mr. Lightsey has handled no criminal appeals, but reported to the Joint Committee that he drafted the opinions in the following criminal appeals:

(a) United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985).

(b) United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1984).

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Lightsey has engaged in an active trial and appellate practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Lightsey's temperament would be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Lightsey 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.

Mr. Lightsey is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Lightsey 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. Mr. Lightsey has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

Mr. Lightsey is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Mr. Lightsey 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.

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

Mr. Lightsey testified that he is aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

(10) Miscellaneous:

Mr. Lightsey meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Lightsey qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Lightsey "has a superior academic record as evidenced by his undergraduate and law school achievements, and members of the Bar rate him very high on legal knowledge. Mr. Lightsey has a wide range of legal experience from his multi-faceted practice and is well-prepared and industrious. His character and integrity are unquestioned. His analytical skills are sound. No one interviewed considered his lack of past judicial experience to be a hindrance to his prospective judicial service."

Mr. Lightsey 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 Mr. Lightsey's transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.

Mr. Lightsey 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. Mr. Lightsey's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Shine was screened on December 13, 1995, 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.

Mr. Shine demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. Shine stated that he has served as moderator at several Government Law Section seminars of the S.C. Bar, and has conducted agency-wide training on Federal standards of conduct and conflicts of interests laws for the U.S. General Services Administration.

Mr. Shine published "A Perspective on Title 18 U.S.C. Section 207(g)," in the Ethics Newsgram of the United States Office of Government Ethics (vol. 3, no. 4, August 1986).

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

Mr. Shine's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Shine graduated from the Harvard University School of Law in 1974 and was admitted to the South Carolina Bar later in the same year. Mr. Shine was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1975.

Since graduating from law school, Mr. Shine has worked as an attorney with the Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Air Force from 1974 to 1976, the City of Charleston from 1976 to 1977, Walter Bilbro and Associates, P.A. from 1977 to 1978, Chapman and Shine, P.A. from 1978 to 1979, District of Columbia from 1979 to 1980,

| Printed Page 400, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 420, Feb. 6 |

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:59 P.M.