| Printed Page 410, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 430, Feb. 6 |

Mr. Shine described his practice over the past five years as 85% civil and 15% criminal.

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

(a) Gilstrap et al. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 423 S.E.2d 101 (S.C. 1992). Case involved the legality of Budget and Control Board plan to reduce the budget based on growth of individual agency budgets.

(b) Belton v. The State of South Carolina et al., 443 S.E.2d 554 (S.C. 1994). Case involved application of the State's Whistleblower Statute involving alleged retaliation by a state agency.

(c) Coble et al. v. The State of South Carolina et al., S.C. Supreme Court (Nov. 15, 1994). Case involved the legality of the Confederate Battle Flag being flown above the State House dome.

(d) Myers et al. v. Patterson et al., 434 S.E.2d 841 (S.C. 1993). Case involved the authority of the General Assembly to apply prospectively the collection of a state gasoline tax to pay bond indebtedness from Hurricane Hugo.

(e) Brown v. South Carolina State Board of Education et al., 301 S.C. 326, 391 S.E.2d 866 (1990). Case involved the application of administrative due process to the revocation of a teaching certificate.

Mr. Shine has handled the following civil appeals:

(a) Gilstrap et al. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 423 S.E.2d 101 (S.C. 1992). Case involved the legality of Budget and Control Board plan to reduce the budget based on growth of individual agency budgets.

(b) Belton v. The State of South Carolina et al., 443 S.E.2d 554 (S.C. 1994). Case involved application of the State's Whistleblower Statute involving alleged retaliation by a state agency.

(c) Coble et al. v. The State of South Carolina et al., S.C. Supreme Court (Nov. 15, 1994). Case involved the legality of the Confederate Battle Flag being flown above the State House dome.

(e) Brown v. South Carolina State Board of Education et al., 301 S.C. 326, 391 S.E.2d 866 (1990). Case involved the application of administrative due process to the revocation of a teaching certificate.

Although Mr. Shine has not handled any direct criminal appeals, he has provided the Joint Committee with five Post Conviction Review matters that he has handled which have proceeded to appellate review:

(a) Cartrette v. State, 448 S.E.2d 553 (S.C. August 15, 1994). Case submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.

(b) Ford v. State, 442 S.E.2d 604 (S.C. March 21, 1994). Submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.

(c) Langford v. State, 426 S.E.2d 793 (S.C. February 1, 1993). Submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.

(d) Clark v. State, 434 S.E.2d 266 (S.C. July 12, 1993). Submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.

(e) Richardson v. State, 426 S.E.2d 795 (S.C. February 1, 1993). Submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.

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

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Shine 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. Shine is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Shine served on active duty as a Captain with the U.S. Air Force from 1974 to 1976. Mr. Shine received an honorable discharge.

Mr. Shine is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

The Bar found Mr. Shine qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Shine "has been a practicing attorney, primarily in the governmental area. He is presently serving as general counsel to the State Budget and Control Board where he provides legal services in diverse areas such as public finance, personnel law, real estate, procurement law, and tort litigation. Mr. Shine is highly respected by his peers and well thought of generally in the community. His reputation for character, integrity, and ability is excellent. He would serve without bias and with an excellent judicial temperament."

Mr. Shine 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. Shine'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

Judge Simmons was screened on December 12, 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.

Judge Simmons 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:

Judge Simmons reported that he has lectured at CLE programs for the Greenville Bar, at the S.C. Bar's "Law School for Non-Lawyers", and at Bridge the Gap. He has also lectured law school classes at U.S.C., appeared as a television panelist to discuss different legal topics, and teaches part time in the Paralegal program at Greenville Technical College. Judge Simmons has also lectured at S.C. Bar meetings.

Judge Simmons stated that he has written the following articles:

(a) Tips for Non-Jury Practice, S.C. Lawyer, May/June 1993;

(b) Contributing writer for South Carolina Jurisprudence published Summer 1995;

(c) Article for U.S.C Law School Alumni Magazine published in Spring 1993;

(d) "Drafting Enforceable Non-Compete Agreements," S.C. Bar (May 1995);

(e) Mortgage Foreclosures; A S.C. Primer, S.C. Lawyer (Spring/Summer 1995).

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

Judge Simmons reported that while in private practice he was never rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Simmons graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Simmons has served as a law clerk for C. Victor Pyle from 1982 to 1983, an attorney/partner with Carter, Smith Law Firm from 1983 to 1985, a partner in Wilkins, Nelson, Kittredge, and Simmons from 1986 to 1989, and has served continuously as Master-In-Equity since 1989.

Prior to his appointment as a Master-in-Equity, Judge Simmons described his practice over the previous five years as 55% civil, 5% criminal, and 40% domestic.

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

(a) Owens v. Ruth Construction Co. Workers' Compensation case that involved significant medical and psychological issues. The case was settled for the plaintiff while on appeal to the Supreme Court.

(b) Momani v. Van Surdam, 296 S.C. 409, 373 S.E.2d 691 (Ct. App. 1988). The significance of this case was that it clarified the exact standards of Rule 60 of the S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff could not file an independent action to attack a prior judgment. On appeal, the trial judge was reversed and Mr. Momani's action was allowed to proceed.

(c) Malone v. Malone, 88-DR-23-32. Divorce and custody action. It involved extensive economic evaluations and significant amounts of psychological testimony concerning the best interests of the minor children.

(d) Bolden v. Dan River, Inc., 88-CP-23-1513. Complicated and novel issue concerning post-traumatic-stress disorder. The Workers' Compensation Commission found that coverage existed and the case was settled on appeal for in excess of $100,000.

(e) Ramella v. Ramella, J.R. No. 110041. Divorce action involving millions of dollars in assets most of which was tied up in closely held corporations. The case required extensive work with CPA's in valuating assets. The case was settled shortly before trial.

Judge Simmons listed the following civil appeals he has personally handled:

(a) Arvai v. Shaw, 286 S.C. 357, 334 S.E.2d 297 (Ct. App. 1985).

(c) White v. Snell, 299 S.C. 406, 385 S.E.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1989). Judge Simmons handled the case at the trial level and through preparation of Appellate briefs. Judge Simmons became a Master-In-Equity prior to the case being argued on appeal.

Judge Simmons has not handled any criminal appeals, but has held terms of Post Conviction Relief cases and General Session cases.

Judge Simmons described his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:

(a) First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, ___ S.C. ___, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). The case involved interpretation of the road closure statute (Section 57-9-10). On appeal, the decision to close the road was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

(b) Culler v. Blue Ridge Electric Co-op, Inc., ___ S.C. ___, 422 S.E.2d 91 (1992). Wrongful discharge case involving an employee who claimed he was terminated for failing to join a PAC membership program at Blue Ridge Electric. The case was decided against the employee and the decision was affirmed on appeal.

(c) Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority v. City of Easley, et al., ___ S.C. ___, 426 S.E.2d 649 (1993). The case involved interpretation of the legislative enabling act that established the Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of $2,000,000.

(d) Spinx Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., ___ S.C. ___, 427 S.E.2d 649 (1993). This case involved interpretation of environmental hazards liability insurance coverage. The decision was affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court.

(e) ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 92-CP-23-4197-R. This case involved novel issues concerning accountant liability to third-party investors. The case is currently on appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court.

The Joint Committee determined that Judge Simmons had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil, domestic, and appeals courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

Judge Simmons 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 Simmons is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Simmons 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 Simmons has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Judge Simmons has been active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

The Bar found Judge Simmons qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Simmons "is rated very high on legal knowledge, impartiality, and judicial temperament. Judge Simmons is well-prepared, industrious, and personable. His analytical skills are sound. His character and integrity are unquestioned. He is active and well thought of in the community. While he is young, those interviewed believed that his experience as a

Judge Simmons 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 Simmons'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. Stilwell was screened on December 19, 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. Stilwell demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Stilwell currently owns 100% of the interests in his law firm which is organized as a professional association. He testified that if he is elected, he would divest himself of any interest in ongoing cases and would dissolve the professional association as soon as possible. Mr. Stilwell also owns a one-half interest in a building which is currently rented to an engineering firm. He testified that he does not plan to divest himself of this interest, but would recuse himself on any matter involving a tenant or his partner who owns the other one-half interest.

Mr. Stilwell is the secretary and a member of the board of directors in a closely-held corporation which owns, manages, and rents residential property in Greenville. Mr. Stilwell testified that he is not active in the management of this property, and the company is in the process of winding up its affairs.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar indicated that Mr. Stilwell is very intelligent and knowledgeable. Mr. Stilwell's law school record was outstanding, as he was an associate editor of the Law Quarterly and chief justice of the Society of Wig and Robe.

In past years, Mr. Stilwell has taught the legal portion of real estate law to prospective real estate broker/agents, and while he has not been a presenter at CLE seminars, he has participated in numerous conferences in recent years dealing with subjects of legal significance, new developments in the law, and related subjects before diverse groups, such as the Solicitor's Association, the South Carolina Textile Manufacturer's Association (on the subject of the 1991 Ethics Act).

Mr. Stilwell's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.

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

Mr. Stilwell was sued along with others by a former client regarding a real estate title dispute. Mr. Stilwell was granted summary judgment, but the client has filed pro se notice of intent to appeal. The Joint Committee did not find merit in this lawsuit and sees no cause for concern.

3. Professional Experience:

Mr. Stilwell listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:

(a) Gathings v. Robertson (367 S.E.2d 423, Ct. of Appeals, 1988). This case involved complicated civil litigation in which two or three separate component parts were proceeding at virtually the same time.

(b) Cass v. Nannarello (262 S.E.2d 924, 1980). The practical significance of the case, as distinguished from the legal significance, is that one should sue for specific performance in a real estate contract unless the concurrence of the broker is obtained before allowing a prospective purchaser out.

(d) Baker v. Pelham Precision Springs (Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion Number 94-UP-247; Heard October 4, 1994, Filed October 25, 1994). This case involved a conflict between a mandatory buy-sell agreement executed by the two shareholders of a corporation and the corporation.

(e) Metro Mobile, C.T.A. -- Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity before the Public Service Commission to provide cellular telephone service in the Greenville-Spartanburg market.

Mr. Stilwell listed five civil appeals which he has personally handled as follows:

(a) David L. Hines v. Hendricks Canning Company and U.S. Fire Insurance Company; Supreme Court of South Carolina, January 8, 1975. 211 S.E.2d 220.

(b) South Carolina State Highway Department v. Joe Freeman and Wayne Freeman; Supreme Court of South Carolina, January 30, 1975. 211 S.E.2d 561.

(c) The Cass Co. v. Ann G. Nannarello and William S. Toussaint; Supreme Court of South Carolina, February 20, 1980. 262 S.E.2d 924.

(d) Glenn D. Bentrim v. Patricia Ann Bentrim; Court of Appeals of South Carolina; heard April 16, 1984, decided July 6, 1984. 318 S.E.2d 131.

(e) John M. Gathings v. Robertson Brokerage Company, Inc.; Court of Appeals of South Carolina; heard January 8, 1988; decided March 14, 1988. 367 S.E.2d 423.

Mr. Stilwell has handled two criminal appeals.

Mr. Stilwell's practice has been approximately 50% civil, 10% criminal, and 40% domestic over the past five years. He has appeared in state court approximately thirty to forty times a year for the past several years. In response to the Joint Committee's request for a list of matters he actually took to trial over the past several years, Mr. Stilwell provided the Joint Committee with a list of fifteen matters which included three family court appearances, eight appearances in the court of common pleas, two appearances in probate court, one appearance before a master-in-equity, and one South Carolina Supreme Court appeal.

| Printed Page 410, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 430, Feb. 6 |

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