| Printed Page 480, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 500, Feb. 6 |

Ms. Jefferson described her practice over the past five years as 49% civil, 2% criminal, and 49% domestic.

Ms. Jefferson provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:

(a) Blake v. County of Charleston. Complex civil rights case involving practices of the Charleston County Police Department.

(b) Hymes v. Khoury. Auto accident case.

(c) In re The Estate of Joseph J. White, Jr., et al. Probate Court case where the principal issue was the paternity of the 2 year old minor child of the decedent.

(d) Ashby v. Ashby. Divorce action involving custody issues, equitable distribution, adultery, child support, and attorney's fees.

(e) Thompson v. Polite. Visitation dispute. Case was finally submitted to mediation where an amicable agreement was reached.

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

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Jefferson's temperament would be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Ms. Jefferson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

Ms. Jefferson is single and has no children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Jefferson appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7) Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Jefferson has managed her financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Ms. Jefferson is active in professional and community activities.

Ms. Jefferson testified that she 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.

Ms. Jefferson testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Ms. Jefferson testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

(10) Miscellaneous:

Ms. Jefferson meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.

The Bar found Ms. Jefferson qualified. The Bar reported that "although Ms. Jefferson has been out of law school only six years, she has displayed both intellectual and practical knowledge beyond her years. Several attorney interviewees commented that they call upon her for advice even though she is their `junior.' She is a mature individual with an even temperament. She is sensitive towards differing points of view. She is committed to `giving back' something to the community."

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Landis 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. Landis 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.

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

Mr. Landis' Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Landis graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1980 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Landis has worked as a part-time public defender from 1980 to 1984, a sole practitioner from 1980 to 1984, with the firm of Williams and Landis from 1984 to 1989, with the firm of Dennis, Dennis & Landis from 1989 to 1993, and as a sole practitioner since 1993.

Mr. Landis has served as a Municipal Judge for the Town of Moncks Corner from 1987 to the present.

Mr. Landis described his practice over the past five years as 10% civil, 5% criminal, and 85% domestic.

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

(a) Betty C. Francis vs. Edward Francis. Domestic action with issues of divorce, child custody, visitation, child support, alimony, and equitable division of property. Ms. Francis prevailed both at the trial level and on appeal to the Supreme Court.

(b) Wayne Dalton Corp. vs. Acme Door et al., 394 S.E.2d 302 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990). Civil action concerning personal guarantees and novations.

(c) Purdie vs. Smalls, 293 S.C. 216, 359 S.E.2d 306 (___). Case involving definition and clarification of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.

(d) Dave Creech vs. Melissa Creech. Custody action where father was granted sole custody even though mother was the primary caretaker.

(e) John T. Motte vs. Lucy C. Motte. Domestic matter with issues of custody, equitable division, alimony, child support, visitation, attorney's fees, and divorce.

Mr. Landis listed five domestic appeals that he has personally handled as follows:

(b) Sherman v. Sherman, 414 S.C. 809, 307 S.E.2d 280 (1992). Issues were whether trial judge erred in awarding attorney fees, and in the award of child support in excess of the child support guidelines.

(c) Wilkerson v. Staton, (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 14, 1995). Not reported. Issue was whether trial judge erred in requiring that children be listed as co-owners of a retirement account as opposed to being named co-beneficiaries of said account.

(d) Dawson v. Dawson, (S.C. Ct. App. filed Mar. 8, 1993). Not reported. Appeal of a divorce action.

(e) Norton v. Norton, (S.C. Ct. App. filed Apr. 28, 1993). Not reported. Issues included apportioning equitable distribution, valuation of assets, spousal support, and attorney's fees.

Mr. Landis testified that divorce and equitable distribution of property cases comprised 43 to 44% of his domestic practice, child custody 43 to 44%, adoption 1 to 2%, abuse and neglect 10%, and juvenile justice 1 to 2%.

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Landis had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Court, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Landis is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

The Bar found Mr. Landis qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Landis "has trial experience in Family Court and has done an outstanding job as Municipal Judge for the Town of Moncks Corner since 1987. He displays good character and abilities in his law practice and in his duties as municipal judge."

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Query 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. Query reports that he has been sued twice. One suit was filed by a business creditor regarding a retail lease and purchase agreement, and was settled before trial. The other suit involved an accident in which his twelve year old son and a playmate removed a gun from a closet and the playmate was seriously injured when the gun accidentally discharged.

Mr. Query currently is a member of the Board of Directors of Cessco, Inc., a family-owned business.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. Query reported that he has taught on the criminal law perspective of substance abuse at the Fenwick Hall Seminar for several years.

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

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

(3) Professional Experience:

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

He was associated with Uricchio, Howe, and Krell from 1971 to 1974. He was a sole practitioner ("O. Grady Query, Attorney at Law") from 1974 to 1988. From 1988 to 1992, Mr. Query was a partner in Uricchio and Query, P.A. He has practiced as "O. Grady Query, P.A." since 1992.

Mr. Query has served as judge for the Folly Beach Municipal Court since 1985.

Mr. Query described his practice over the past five years as 50% civil, 20% criminal, and 30% domestic.

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

(a) Glass v. Dow Chemical Workers' compensation case with full appellate review of statutory employee exemption.

(b) Botany Bay Marina v. Great American, Inc. State court trial on insurance coverage and unusual policy language with review by the Fourth Circuit.

(c) Rogerson v. Rogerson Broad domestic appeal on issues of support, equitable distribution, alimony, and marital property.

(e) U.S. v. Smith; Smith v. Southern Railway Series of criminal cases involving a contractor and invoices submitted by agreement under false categories. Involved complex issues of discovery, grand jury, constitutional law, and elements of malicious prosecution.

Mr. Query listed the following appeals he has personally handled:

(a) Rogerson v. Rogerson, Family Court (domestic)

(b) Glass v. Dow, Court of Common Pleas, S.C. Court of Appeals, 447 S.E.2d 209 (civil)

(c) Botany Bay v. Great American U.S. District Court, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, (unpublished) (civil)

(d) Lybrand v. Merrill Lynch, Arbitration N.A.S.D., Court of Common Pleas, S.C. Court of Appeals (civil)

(e) Fagan v. Asheville Savings and Loan Court of Common Pleas, S.C. Supreme Court (domestic and civil appeals)

At the request of the Joint Committee, Mr. Query provided a list of representative domestic cases that he has handled. The cases were incorporated into the record of Mr. Query's public hearing and were printed in the transcript of his public hearing.

Mr. Query described his Family Court practice as 90% divorce and equitable distribution cases, child custody cases more than 50%, no adoption cases, occasional abuse and neglect case, and 30% generic domestic law.

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Query had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Court, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Query is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

The Bar found Mr. Query qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Query "has extensive experience in Family Court, as well as in Common Pleas and General Sessions Court. He presently serves as Municipal Court Judge for the City of Folly Beach and is doing an outstanding job in this capacity. In the course of his work as Municipal Judge he has presided over many cases involving young people, and he has a keen interest in how the law impacts the lives of juveniles. He is intelligent, industrious, and wise. He displays humility and good humor in his law practice and in his duties as Municipal Judge. He is patient and has an even temperament. Judge Query articulates a strong sense of purpose regarding public service which he has demonstrated in his career."

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

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

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

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Soderlund graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1974 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Mr. Soderlund worked as an associate with the firm of Smoak, Howell, Bridge & Moody from 1974 to 1975 and as a sole practitioner since 1976.

Mr. Soderlund described his practice over the past five years as 20% civil, 10% criminal, and 70% domestic.

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

(a) FAMILY COURT - Mr. Soderlund represented the wife in an action for a divorce on the grounds of adultery while demanding other marital relief. The case is significant in that the Court held that the admitted misconduct from years earlier was sufficient to establish the grounds for divorce, as the wife had no prior knowledge and there was no cohabitation after the admissions were first made by the husband. No appeal was taken.

(b) MUNICIPAL COURT - Mr. Soderlund was appointed to represent the defendant who was charged with assault (2 counts) and disorderly conduct under a city ordinance.

(d) FAMILY COURT - Mr. Soderlund represented the father in an action filed for change of custody of the couple's four year old son.

(e) COMMON PLEAS COURT; REMOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURT 1989. Mr. Soderlund represented a man who was struck from the rear, as a pedestrian, while walking on the side of Highway 78 in Charleston County. The issue in the case was insurance coverage.

Mr. Soderlund provided the Joint Committee with the following domestic appeals that he has personally handled:

(a) DUGGER V. DUGGER - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court; Date of appeal March 7, 1978-not reported- March 16, 1978, appealed Order reversed on supersedeas.

(b) DIVANS V. DIVENS - Appeal from Berkeley County Family Court: Date of Appeal: October 1982 - not reported - January 6, 1983, appealed Order reversed by Supreme Court.

(c) DONNELLY V. DUNNING - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. S.C. Court of Appeals 87-MO-2; 1/5/1987.

(d) PRICE V. PRICE - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. S.C. Supreme Court decision 88-MO-36.

(e) FISHER V. FISHER - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. Notice of Intent to Appeal filed July 1, 1994. Lower Court decision affirmed by SC Court of Appeals on August 7, 1995.

Mr. Soderlund provided the Committee with supplemental information regarding the breakdown of his domestic practice.

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

| Printed Page 480, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 500, Feb. 6 |

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