| Printed Page 420, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 440, Feb. 6 |

The Joint Committee also recognized Mr. Stilwell's willingness while in the Senate to lend his experience and leadership to very complex legal matters. For example, Mr. Stilwell has in recent years served as a conferee on the 1991 Ethics Act and government restructuring. He also served on the reapportionment subcommittee.

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Stilwell has 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. Stilwell's temperament would be excellent.

5. Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Stilwell 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. Stilwell is married and has four children.

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

8. Public Service:

Mr. Stilwell is active in professional and community activities.

9. Ethics:

Mr. Stilwell 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;

(d) used Senate staff or other resources to campaign or prepare his application materials.

Mr. Stilwell testified that he understood the new Joint Committee rule requiring him to wait forty-eight hours after the draft report is released before he may begin seeking commitments.

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

The Bar found Mr. Stilwell qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Stilwell "possesses intellect, as evidenced by his law school academic achievements and comments of members of the Bar. Mr. Stilwell has a wide range of legal experience from his multifaceted practice. His reputation for integrity and excellent temperament is recognized by colleagues. His work in the South Carolina General Assembly has gained strong praise from individuals across political lines. He has used his legal knowledge to assist the legislature in areas that touch the legal community. No one interviewed considered his lack of past judicial experience to be a hindrance to his prospective judicial service.

Mr. Stilwell 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. Stilwell'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. King 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:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.

Mr. King 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.

Mr. King is a member of the NationsBank (Sumter) Advisory Board which is a local advisory board for the bank.

Mr. King is Vice-President of Carolina Professional Title Services which is a title insurance agency.

Mr. King reported being sued personally or professionally in the following cases:

(a) Moore v. S.C. Bar, et al. (1980). Suit arose out of an article in "The Transcript," and was decided in favor of the Bar. Mr. King was sued because he was Chairman of the House of Delegates of the South Carolina Bar.

(b) King v. Shorter. Suit on a note which resulted in a counterclaim against Mr. King for breach of fiduciary duty. Case was decided in Mr. King's favor and the counterclaim was dismissed.

(c) McLeod v. McLeod. Suit by dissenting stockholders in a corporate merger against the Board of Directors and legal counsel. Mr. King was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. King has served as a teacher for a business law course at Sumter Area Technical College, a program moderator for a S.C. Bar CLE, and as a lecturer on mechanics liens for a Stewart Title Company seminar.

Mr. King published 2 Comments in the S.C. Law Review. Cohabitation as a Denial of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 17 S.C.L.R. 292 (1965), and Search and Seizure - A Constitutional Standard for South Carolina, 17 S.C.L.R. 687 (1965).

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

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

Mr. King graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1966 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Mr. King has practiced law in Sumter with Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen since his graduation from law school. He is currently a partner with the firm.

Mr. King described his practice over the past five years as 98% civil and 2% criminal.

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

(a) Gardiner, Ingemi, and D'Angelo v. Northern Engineering and Plastics, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Civil Action Nos.: 3:92-3492-0, 3:93-816-0, and 3:93-817-0. Sexual harassment case against employer under the Civil Rights Act. Defendant/Employer prevailed on all counts.

(b) Ervin Brunson v. Sumter County, U.S. District Court. Inmate brought suit for personal injuries sustained while incarcerated in Sumter County Jail.

(c) United States Department of Justice v. Sumter County, U.S. District Court. Litigation with Department of Justice over how members of Sumter County Council were elected.

(d) Beasley v. Bingham, Case No. 94-CP-14-181. Debt Collection and Attachment action. Defendant argued that attachment of equipment was improper in that attachment statutes were unconstitutional because they failed to give the Defendant any pre-seizure notification. Trial judge found the statutes unconstitutional.

(e) United States Department of Agriculture v. Young's Food Stores, Inc.. Attempt by Department of Agriculture to have Defendant debarred from bidding on procurement contracts.

(f) Young's Food Stores, Inc. v. Dorothy McLeod and Dorothy McLeod v. E.B. McLeod, et al., 91-CP-43-268. Suit for valuation of dissenting shareholder's stock after approval of a merger and consolidation of the company. Second suit was by dissenting shareholder against Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty.

Mr. King reported the following five appeals he has personally handled:

(a) Genesco, Inc., v. Palmetto Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. and Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 274 S.C. 446, 263 S.E.2d 34 (1979). Plaintiff sought injunction against building a Hardee's. The Master who heard the case denied the request for an

(b) Rogers v. United States of America and Sumter County, 397 F.2d 12, 302 F. Supp. 699, 426 F.2d 311. A suit for injuries sustained by an inmate after being released from custody into the care of a third party. Court found no liability on the Defendants and was affirmed on appeal.

(c) McCarty v. Sumter Music and Amusements. Action challenging the location of video game machines.

(d) Weible v. Weible. Civil suit for conversion by son against his father and a counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jury returned verdict for father on his counterclaim. Verdict was reversed on appeal.

(e) Briggs v. Richardson, 288 S.C. 537, 343 S.E.2d 653 (1986). Action to have a constructive trust placed on real estate. Trial judge found for defendant and decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Mr. King provided supplemental information at the Joint Committee's request that gives representative criminal cases that Mr. King has handled throughout his legal career. Despite the fact that his current practice is almost exclusively civil, the Joint Committee is satisfied, based on this supplemental information that Mr. King's past criminal practice is sufficient for a Circuit Court judge candidate.

The Joint Committee determined that, in the course of his legal career, Mr. King had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. King served as a first lieutenant in the United States Army and the South Carolina National Guard. Mr. King was honorably discharged in 1966.

Mr. King is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

The Bar found Mr. King qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. King "possesses the academic background, the intellect, and the experience necessary to serve in this position. He has a wide range of legal experience in a very successful law practice. His reputation for integrity, even handedness and excellent temperament is recognized by his colleagues at the bar. Mr. King has held several offices with the South Carolina Bar, including his election as President, and is presently serving as President of the Sumter County Bar. He has received the endorsement of the Sumter County Bar, the Lee County Bar, the Clarendon County Bar, and the Williamsburg County Bar, which is indicative of the reputation he enjoys with his colleagues. No one interviewed considered lack of past judicial experience to be a hindrance to his prospective judicial service."

Mr. King was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Judge Alford 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.

The Joint Committee investigated and dismissed, for lack of any evidence, allegations that Judge Alford had involvement in third party efforts to bolster his candidacy prior to the issuance of this report.

Judge Alford 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 Alford stated that he has served as a speaker for several Judicial CLEs and a three-day session for new Probate Judges. Judge Alford has lectured on the following topics: Conducting a Jury Trial; Probate Court Jurisdiction; Trusts and Annual Update of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Probate Courts. He has spoken to the South Carolina Bankers' Association about the new Probate Code, to a CLE seminar about claims procedures in probate estate in light of Tulsa Professional Services v. Pope, and has served as a moderator for a CLE seminar for attorneys and CPA's on the South Carolina Probate Code.

------------------------------------------

[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in deliberation of this candidate.

Judge Alford's most recent Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV (1991).
(3) Professional Experience:

Judge Alford graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1971 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Alford was associated with another attorney in the general practice of law from 1971 to 1977, opened his own law practice from 1977 to 1979, served as Probate Judge for York County from 1979 to 1992, and has served as a Family Court Judge from 1992 to present. In the practice of law, Judge Alford participated in criminal, civil, domestic relations, probate, and property cases, and his caseload was evenly divided in these areas of law.

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

(a) Berry B. Jones and Peggy W. Jones v. James Overcash and Snap-On Tools. The first civil trial Judge Alford handled from start to finish. The key issue during trial was whether a statute required reduced speed and caution on a dirt road with only one home, but which is scraped by the county, when passing.

(b) State v. Janie Sadler. The first murder case that Judge Alford handled from start to finish. The key issue in this case was whether self-defense was available to a woman who shot her boyfriend with whom she lived. The jury believed that the defendant acted in self-defense and found her not guilty.

(c) State v. Leroy Golden. Rape case involving 14 and 12 year old defendants and a 9 year old victim. The defendants who were tried in General Sessions Court rather than Family Court were found guilty. The jury however recommended mercy thus obviating the necessity of a sentence of life imprisonment.

(d) State v. Lovant Voltair Washington. Breaking and entering case where the issue was whether opening a screen door going onto a screened back porch with only a mop on it constituted breaking and entering with the intent to commit a crime. The jury found the defendant not guilty.

(e) Lillian Love Nance, Executrix of the Estate of Alice Hardee Love v. S.C. Tax Commission. Cited by S. C. Tax Commission and Attorney General's Opinions. Judge Alford was not listed as an attorney of record in this case. It was the first case he worked on after law school and he did research and helped prepare the

Judge Alford provided the Joint Committee with the following five civil appeals:

(a) Eugene Patterson v. J.R. Bogan and Ernest Kerr, 261 S.C. 87, 198 S.E. 2d 586. This was an action for malicious prosecution tried in Union County. Judge Alford represented the plaintiff who prevailed at trial ($20,000 verdict) and on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Judge Alford had to levy execution and advertise a sale of property before the judgment was paid.

(b) Jesse C. Johnson, Fire Marshal of the State of South Carolina v. Melvin L. Roberts, South Carolina Court Opinion No. 20460, 1977. Melvin L. Roberts installed several self-service gas stations which were operated by inserting one dollar bills. There was no attendant required. The S. C. Fire Marshal sought to close these gas stations because there was no attendant. After a lengthy trial, the Circuit Court ruled that the S.C. Fire Marshal was not entitled to an injunction. In a landmark case, the S.C. Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court. The U. S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.

(c) James C. Cloniger v. Lamar W. Cloniger, 261 S.C. 603, 193 S.E. 2d. 647. Judge Alford is not listed as an attorney of record in this case, but did most of the work in research and preparation of the appeal including the record on appeal and the brief.

(d) Margaret Patrick Wright v. W.M. Patrick, 262 S.C. 434, 205 S.E. 2d 175. This case involved an alleged contract to make a will. Judge Alford got a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor after a lengthy trial in York County. Judge William Rhodes granted judgment N.O.V. to the defendants. Judge Alford appealed and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Judge Rhodes.

(e) The Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Ida Walker Wood, et al, 334 F.Sup. 1124. Judge Alford is not listed as an attorney of record in this case, but did most of the research and preparation of briefs for the attorney with whom he was associated. This case involved the construction of a will. The wife and children of the deceased sought a construction that would close the class of heirs so that they could borrow money to pay debts and keep the real property in the estate out of foreclosure. This was the only chance they had, but the Federal District Court of South Carolina ruled otherwise and the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

(a) McKibben v. Estate of Blanche Crenshaw, Case No. 91ES4600344. First jury trial ever held in the York County Probate Court. Plaintiffs contested a will alleging mental incapacity and undue influence. A verdict was directed for the defendant on the issue of mental incapacity, and the jury found for the defendant on the issue of undue influence.

(b) In the Interest of Gregory Kente Neely, a minor 16 years of age, 94-JU-46-7 through 94-JU-46-12; and In the Interest of Schafig Azim El-Amin, a minor 15 years of age, 94-JU-46-1 through 94-JU-46-6. These cases involved waiving the juveniles to General Sessions to stand trial on charges of murder, armed robbery, etc. This was the second case where cameras were allowed into family court in York County.

(c) The State-Record Co., Inc. and the Greenville News, Intervenors. In re: SCDSS v. Susan Smith, et al., 88-DR-44-11. The media attempted to have the sealed file in the above case opened. The Order discusses the development of the law as to openness in the Courts. The Order was not appealed.

(d) Mark Glenn v. Sandra Glenn, 94-DR-46-464. The case involved a number of issues including: divorce, custody, visitation, division of marital property, attorney's fees, and substantial expert testimony.

(e) Billy B. Davis v. Barbara B. Davis, 93-DR-46-1896. This case involved decree of separate maintenance and includes a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and unusual features of equitable distribution of marital property.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Judge Alford 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 Alford is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

| Printed Page 420, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 440, Feb. 6 |

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