Printed Page 470, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 490, Feb. 6
|
Printed Page 470, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 490, Feb. 6
| The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Saunders has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Saunders has been active in professional and community activities.
Judge Saunders was employed as a police officer from 1962 to 1965 while attending Presbyterian College.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Saunders 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 Saunders testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Saunders 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 Saunders meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Saunders qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Saunders "has served on the Family Court bench for slightly more than a year" and that "he is respected by members of the Bar for his impartiality and judicial temperament." The Bar found that "Judge Saunders possesses good knowledge of the law and has excellent character, integrity, and reputation." The Bar also reported that "he is considered to be fair and impartial to litigants and attorneys."
Judge Saunders 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 Saunders' 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
Judge Saunders 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 Saunders' 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. Williams 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. Williams 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 Mr. Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Williams' Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Williams graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1979 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Williams has practiced law as an associate of J.C. Nicholson,
Jr. from 1979 to 1980, as a partner in
------------------------------------------
[1] Mr. Delleney did not vote.
Mr. Williams described his practice over the past five years as 35% civil, 35% criminal, and 30% domestic.
Mr. Williams provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Rothrock v. McCall Thomas Engineering Company, Inc. This was a slander and tortuous interference with a contract action.
(b) Reed v. Medlin, ___ S.C. ___, 281 S.E.2d 125 (1981); ___ S.C. ___, 328 S.E.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1985). Wrongful death action where plaintiff's husband was burned to death at highway patrol roadblock.
(c) Joseph Broughton v. Seaboard Airline Railroad. Negligence action involving a car-train accident. Difficult issues of contributory negligence.
(d) Dixie Kemmerlin v. Roy Campbell, M.D.. Malpractice action where for the first time a local physician was sued by a local attorney.
Mr. Williams described the following appeals that he has personally handled:
(a) Reed v. Medlin, ___ S.C. ___, 281 S.E.2d 125 (1981); ___ S.C. ___, 328 S.E.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1985).
(b) Nancy B. Evans v. Dan W. Evans, Op. No. 88-MO-018 (filed February 29, 1988). Appeal of a domestic action involving issues of custody, visitation, support, and property action.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Williams 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:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Williams' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Williams 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. Williams is single and has no children.
Mr. Williams 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. Williams has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Williams served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1965 to 1976. He attained the rank of E-7. He was honorably discharged in 1976.
Mr. Williams is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Williams 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. Williams testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Williams 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. Williams meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Williams qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Williams "has extensive trial experience in Common Pleas and General Sessions Court. He presently serves as the Deputy Solicitor of the First Judicial Circuit. He is considered honest and intelligent. He has an excellent work ethic. Mr. Williams is considered courteous in the courtroom and is well regarded among members of the Bar. It is believed that he would have good judicial temperament."
Mr. Williams 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. Williams' actual response to each of these questions is
Mr. Williams 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. Williams' 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
Judge Spruill 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.
Judge Spruill 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 Spruill states that he has lectured Guardian Ad Litem training programs and the training programs for battered women volunteers.
Judge Spruill has written the following articles:
(a) Survey of Articles I-VII of the proposed draft for a revised South Carolina Constitution, 22 S.C.L.R. 50 (1970).
(b) Automobile Insurance - Omnibus Exclusion, 20 S.C.L.R 855 (1968).
Judge Spruill reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV.
The Joint Committee found Judge Spruill to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Judge Spruill graduated cum laude from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1970 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Spruill has clerked for U.S. District Judge Robert W. Hemphill from 1970 to 1971, worked as an associate to Frank L. Taylor from 1971 to 1973, been a partner in the firm of Griggs, Spruill and Harris from 1974 to 1989, and served as a Family Court Judge since 1989.
Judge Spruill provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders as follows:
(a) Shake vs. Darlington County DSS, 306 S.C. 216, 410 S.E.2d 923. Termination of Parental Rights action.
(b) Christy vs. Christy, ___ S.C. ___, 452 S.E.2d 1. Case involved issues of whether the husband was entitled to a reimbursement for overpayment of alimony, income taxes paid on the wife's behalf, and a return of a sewing machine.
(c) Kochenower vs. Kochenower, 93-DR-11-889. Divorce action on the ground of one year's continuous separation with issues of child custody, child support, division of property, alimony, and attorney's fees.
(d) Fulghum v. Fulghum, 90-DR-23-1963. Divorce action on the grounds of adultery and physical cruelty with issues of child custody, alimony, child support, division of property, and attorney's fees and suit money.
(e) Easley v. Easley, 94-DR-34-664. Divorce action on the ground of adultery with issues of child custody, child support, alimony and division of property.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
Judge Spruill reported in his application that during the summer of 1990, DSS abuse and neglect workers in Chesterfield County complained that he had been uncivil to them. Judge Spruill does not agree but hopes that time has smoothed the difference.
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Spruill's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Spruill 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.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Spruill 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 Spruill has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Spruill served as an active duty lieutenant in the U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1967 and in the active reserves from 1967 to 1970. Judge Spruill states that he chose to go on a standby category after his reserves obligation and does not know his exact status now but assumes that he has been discharged.
Judge Spruill has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Spruill 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 Spruill testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Spruill 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 Spruill meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Spruill qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Spruill "has been a Family Court Judge for six years and has demonstrated excellent judicial temperament. He is intelligent and able to grasp the issues quickly. Judge Spruill is an individual of unquestioned character and integrity. His decisions are not influenced by the identity of the
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Judge Brown 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.
Judge Brown 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 Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Judge Brown's last rating in Martindale-Hubbell was AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Brown graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar in 1974.
From 1974 to 1993, Judge Brown practiced law in Winnsboro, S.C. He had a general practice which consisted of criminal, civil, social security, real estate, and bank law.
Judge Brown served as City Recorder for Winnsboro from 1976 to 1980.
Judge Brown provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders as follows:
(a) Kennington v. Kennington, 94-DR-29-587. Divorce/ Custody.
(b) Graham v. Graham, 93-DR-40-4485. Divorce and Equitable Distribution.
(c) Stanton v. Stanton, 94-DR-40-2824. Custody.
(e) Atkinson v. Atkinson, 93-DR-12-390. Divorce and Equitable Distribution.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Brown's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Brown 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 Brown is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Brown 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 Brown has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Brown was a member of the S.C. Army National Guard from 1969-1975 and was honorably discharged.
Judge Brown has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Brown 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 Brown testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Brown testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
Judge Brown meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Brown qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Brown "has extensive and broad experience in Family Court and possesses a strong working knowledge of the law of Family Court. The majority of those interviewed felt that he is a good worker and well-prepared in court and that he would have a good judicial temperament. Mr. Brown is perceived as having good character, integrity, and reputation."
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Ms. Jefferson 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.
Ms. Jefferson 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 Ms. Jefferson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Ms. Jefferson's performance on the practice and procedure questions in her prior screening met the Committee's expectations, she was given, and she accepted, the option of incorporating her previous answers to those questions into the present screening.
Ms. Jefferson has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Jefferson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1989 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Ms. Jefferson worked as a law clerk for the Honorable Richard E. Fields from 1989 to 1990 and as an attorney with McFarland and Associates since 1990. Her trial practice at McFarland and Associates
Printed Page 470, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 490, Feb. 6
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:59 P.M.