Printed Page 440, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
|
Printed Page 440, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
| (4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Breeden's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Breeden is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
Judge Breeden 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. Judge Breeden's actual response to each of these questions is included 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.
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden'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. Brogdon 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Brogdon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Mr. Brogdon met the expectations of the Committee regarding the practice and procedure questions asked in his prior screening, he was given the option of incorporating his performance on those questions into the present screening.
Mr. Brogdon's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Brogdon graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1977 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
After graduation from law school, Mr. Brogdon joined the firm of William H. Seals, P.A.. He remained with that firm until Mr. Seals death when he acquired the firm changing the name to Seals and Brogdon and finally to James E. Brogdon, Attorney at Law, P.A..
Mr. Brogdon reported to the Committee that he attended a week long seminar on mediation and became a Certified Mediator.
Mr. Brogdon described his practice over the past five years as 40% civil, 10% criminal, and 50% domestic.
Mr. Brogdon provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Lewis v. The Florence Morning News - a Workers' Compensation case.
(b) Dove v. Ansel Edwards and Dorothy Edwards - Family Court custody dispute.
(c) Shelley v. Shelley - Divorce action.
(d) Samaha v. Miller - Civil car wreck case.
(e) Rogers v. Byrd, et al. - Libel and slander action.
Mr. Brogdon provided the Committee with additional information regarding his practice of the law, including his work as the Marion County Attorney and a description of two recent automobile accident cases handled by him.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Brogdon had engaged in an active trial practice in the courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Brogdon's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Brogdon served in the United States Army Reserves from 1974-1988 and was honorably discharged with the rank of Captain. Mr. Brogdon also served in the S.C. National Guard from 1978 to 1980.
Mr. Brogdon is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
Mr. Brogdon 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. Mr. Brogdon's actual response to each of these questions is included 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. Cofield was screened on December 18, 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. Cofield 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. Cofield was once sued in magistrate's court by Ursula Lain, an expert witness, to recover her expert's fee. Mr. Cofield stated that the dispute arose because of Ms. Lain's scheduling conflicts that required her lengthy deposition to be taken in 2 parts. Ms. Lain sued for her fee after the first part of her deposition had been taken, but before her testimony had been completed. The suit was dismissed with prejudice when the fee was paid.
------------------------------------------
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in deliberation of this candidate.
Mr. Cofield has served as a speaker at a continuing educational program on automobile accident litigation, has participated in a CLE seminar on ethics sponsored by S.C. Defense Trial Attorneys, and has presented numerous programs to clients on topics such as Insurance Law, Tort Reform, and Premises Liability.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Cofield to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Cofield's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Cofield 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 admission to the Bar, Mr. Cofield has clerked for the Honorable Walter T. Cox, III, from 1982 to 1984 and has been a partner with Barnes, Alford, Stork and Johnson since 1984. Mr. Cofield's practice has been primarily litigation.
Mr. Cofield described his practice over the past five years as 98% civil and 2% criminal. Mr. Cofield provided additional information to the Committee regarding his criminal practice experience. This information can be found in the transcript from Mr. Cofield's public hearing.
Mr. Cofield provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Gary Seigler v. George Disposables, 92-CP-32-2956. Civil Trial with complicated issues of discovery, and numerous causes of actions and defenses.
(b) Powell v. Eldercare, 87-CP-40-4642. Negligence action with complicated medical testimony and numerous witnesses.
(c) William Robertson v. Carolina Production Enterprises, Federal Action Number 3:CV-87-0000494. Case by a Workers' Compensation Carrier seeking to recover on a third party action against a premises owner. Issue was whether the plaintiff was a statutory employee of the defendant premises owner.
(d) Brazell v. Brown, 87-CP-40-4529R. Automobile/Negligence action with a complicated medical history and expert testimony.
(e) Claytor v. Piana, 93-CP-46-467. Negligence action with complex medical issues and testimony. Presently on appeal.
Mr. Cofield provided the Committee with five civil appeals he has personally handled as follows:
(b) Espinal v. Blackmon, et al., 298 S.C. 544, 381 S.E.2d 921 (Ct. App. 1989). Auto accident case. Issue was whether there was personal jurisdiction over defendant since the service of process was improper.
(c) Corner v. Eastern Contractors, Inc., 90-MO-116 (Ct. App.). Auto accident case. Issues were whether the judge properly charged the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk and whether the verdicts were inconsistent.
(d) Kareem Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 403 S.E.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1991). Auto accident case. Issue is whether same jury that decides liability issue in bifurcated trial must also decide issue of damages.
(e) Mr. Cofield also included two cases that had been argued on appeal, but have not been decided. Claytor v. Piana, Starnes v. MTM Hardwicke.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Cofield had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Cofield's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
Mr. Cofield is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Cofield qualified. In regard to Mr. Cofield's experience, the Bar reported that Mr. Cofield "was a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Walter T. Cox, III, Circuit Court Judge (now of the Court of Military Appeals) when Judge Cox was primarily involved in criminal matters arising in post-conviction review cases involving the death penalty. He has been an associate and partner in a law firm heavily involved in general civil litigation. His practice has consisted of experience in federal court frequently and in state court on a weekly basis. He has made occasional appearances in the Court of Appeals, Workers Compensation Commission matters, Bankruptcy Court, Family Court, and Magistrate's Court." The Bar further reported that Mr. Cofield "is considered to be intelligent, knowledgeable in the law, and a hard worker. He is considered to be an effective trial lawyer and has a good demeanor and attitude. His integrity and character are considered to be excellent, and it is believed that he would have a good judicial temperament."
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield'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/(Majority)
Unqualified (Minority: Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Senator John R. Russell, Rep. Hunter Limbaugh)
Mr. Dillard was screened on December 15, 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. Dillard 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 suit was brought by an unknown half-blood to share in after discovered assets of the Estate of a Great Aunt of which Mr. Dillard was Executor and which was closed in 1981. Case settled by distribution of assets.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Dillard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. However, his performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions did not meet expectations. The Committee was concerned by Mr. Dillard's lack of knowledge in most areas of civil law.
Mr. Dillard has not had a Martindale-Hubbell rating since he has been associated with the Spartanburg County Public Defenders Office.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Dillard graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Dillard has been associated with Robert C. Lake, Jr., from 1973 to 1981, been a sole practitioner from 1981 to 1986, and a public defender since 1986.
Mr. Dillard provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) State v. Richard Longworth - Death Penalty Trial. This case involved the killing of two (2) college students at a local movie theater.
(b) State v. Terrance Wheeler - Murder trial. This case involved death in a drive-by shooting.
(c) State v. William Hunnicutt - Trial for burglary, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest. Jury found defendant guilty of simple assault and resisting arrest.
(d) State v. Sole Dowlington - Trial for murder. Jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
(e) State v. Johnnie Sanders - Trial for armed robbery. After two (2) day trial, jury found defendant not guilty.
Mr. Dillard has not handled any appeals since he was in private practice.
Mr. Dillard was asked to provide the Joint Committee with his civil trial and motion practice during his private practice. Mr. Dillard provided the Joint Committee with two cases he handled in 1983. Mr. Dillard also reported that he had handled other personal injury, workers' comp, and property cases during his twelve plus years in private practice
While the Joint Committee determined that Mr. Dillard had engaged in an active criminal trial practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication, the Committee is very concerned by the candidate's lack of civil experience or civil continuing legal education.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Dillard's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Dillard 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. Dillard is married and has one child.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Dillard appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Printed Page 440, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:59 P.M.