| Printed Page 490, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 510, Feb. 6 |

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Soderlund served in the Marine Corps from 1962 to 1966. He was honorably discharged.

Mr. Soderlund is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Dover 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.

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

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

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Dover graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1987 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Mr. Dover has practiced with Dallas D. Ball since 1987.

Mr. Dover described his practice over the past five years as 20% civil, 20% criminal, and 60% domestic.

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

(a) Tina Vaughn v. City of Clemson, SC Circuit Court. First comparative negligence verdict in Pickens County.

(b) State v. (Unnamed Juvenile). Highly publicized murder trial of a 16 year old juvenile. Solicitor sought to have the juvenile tried as an adult, but Family Court retained jurisdiction. After

(c) Lawrence Hatch v. Department of Revenue and Clemson United Methodist Church, Intervenor. Mr. Dover represented the Church as they sought to prohibit the Petitioner from selling beer at Clemson's Memorial Stadium.

(d) Edith McJunkin v. Bi-Lo, Inc. Mr. Dover represented the plaintiff who attempted to hold defendant liable for selling beer to a minor. The case was settled prior to trial.

(e) Sandra H. Miller v. Marilyn P. Martin, S.C. Circuit Court. Auto wreck case. This case represents the largest comparative negligence verdict in Pickens County.

Mr. Dover provided the Committee with two family court appeals that he has handled, as follows:

(a) The Husband v. The Wife, 392 S.E.2d 811 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990).

(b) Selma Rollins v. Gene Rollins, Op. No. 94-UP-033 (filed S.C. App. 1994).

Mr. Dover provided the Committee with three other appeals he has handled:

(a) Grier Dennis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 392 S.E.2d 811 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990).

(b) Lawrence A. Hatch d/b/a Volume Services Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, et al. Writ of supersedeas was heard en banc on September 14, 1995. The appeal is still pending.

(c) Lusk v. Callaham, 339 S.E.2d 156 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986). Mr. Dover was a law student who helped work writing the briefs for this case with Professor Stephen Spitz.

In response to the request of the Joint Committee, Mr. Dover provided a more extensive list of domestic cases in which he was the sole counsel. This list was incorporated into the record and is printed in the transcript of Mr. Dover's public hearing. Mr. Dover provided further information regarding the percentages of his domestic practice in the areas of divorce and equitable division of property, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice. This response was incorporated into the record and is printed in the transcript of Mr. Dover's public hearing.

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

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Dover is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

The Bar found Mr. Dover qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Dover "is highly respected by his peers and well thought of by the non-legal community. His character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding. It is perceived that Mr. Dover would demonstrate excellent judicial

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Johnson 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:

(1) Integrity and Impartiality:

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

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

Mr. Johnson stated that he is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Johnson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1986 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Mr. Johnson has worked as an attorney at Acker, Welmaker & Johnson, P.A since 1986.

Mr. Johnson described his practice over the past five years as 30% civil, 10% criminal, and 60% domestic.

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

(a) Pickens County Department of Social Services vs. Carolyn Diane Golden, James D. Sisk and Cindy Hall Cooper, Case No. 93-DR-39-35. Allegation of physical cruelty by Ms. Cooper of the child of her sister. The charges were later dropped against Ms. Cooper.

(b) City of Pickens vs. David R. Schmitz, 297 S.C. 253, 376 S.E.2d 271 (1989). Defendant claimed that Municipal Courts

(c) Helen Marie Jackson and Andy Bruce Owen vs. Cindy Lee Childs, 93-DR-39-472. Visitation action initiated by child's grandparents after the death of their son, the child's biological father. After a hearing, the grandparents were awarded full visitation which approximated that given to a non-custodial parent.

(d) Robert Malan Bell vs. Cyntial Watson Bell, 93-DR-39-869. Custody action. The Mother was awarded custody after the temporary hearing but at the final hearing it was shown that the mother was a unfit parent. Custody was awarded to the father.

(e) Louie E. Nalley vs. Patsy Dorsey Nalley, Op. No. 94-UP-280 (filed Nov. 22, 1994; refiled Jan. 20, 1995). Divorce action. Issues included hidden assets, adultery, and alimony. Wife was awarded 49% of the assets which included the hidden assets and alimony based on the husband's adultery. Decision was affirmed on appeal except for valuation of an automobile.

Mr. Johnson has handled the following domestic appeals:

(a) Patricia Ann Kimble Qureshi vs. Farooq Husain Qureshi, Op. No. 93-UP-250 (filed Sept. 22, 1993). Court of Appeals case from the Order of Judge R. Kinard Johnson.

(b) Louie E. Nalley vs. Patsy Dorsey Nalley, Op. No. 94-UP-280 (filed Nov. 22, 1994; refiled Jan. 20, 1995). Court of Appeals case from the Order of Judge Joseph W. Board.

(c) Pickens County Department of Social Services vs. Phyllis Paschal, James Shockley and Mary Marks. In the Matter of: Nikki Holloway, Summer Holloway, Ashley Shockley and Michael Marks, Op. No. 94-UP-042 (filed Feb. 10, 1994). Court of Appeals case from the Order of Judge Robert H. Cureton.

(d) Richard E. King vs. Deborah L. King, 93-DR-39-820. Matter is currently pending in the South Carolina Supreme Court.

At the Joint Committee's request, Mr. Johnson described the percentage of his practice as follows: Divorce and Equitable Division of Property (50%), Child Custody (35%), Adoption (5%), Abuse and Neglect (8%), and Juvenile Justice (2%). Mr. Johnson also provided 20 additional cases that represent his practice in those areas.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson is married and has three children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Johnson is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

Mr. Johnson testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

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

The Bar found Mr. Johnson qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Johnson "is thought to be intelligent and very competent in Family Court. He devotes sixty percent or better of his practice to family court matters and is well versed in the law. Mr. Johnson's integrity was beyond question, and he is thought to be a fair person, with good temperament."

A positive affidavit was submitted by Jachin L. and Sandra I. Tate, a couple who Mr. Johnson helped gain custody of their granddaughter.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Ms. Johnson was screened on December 14, 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. Johnson 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:

Ms. Johnson reports that she has taught business law at Southern Wesleyan University in Central, South Carolina since 1989. She also made a presentation on Medicaid at a CLE sponsored by the Legal Services Association.

Ms. Johnson also wrote a newspaper article regarding a legal issue for the Palm Beach Post.

The Joint Committee found Ms. Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Ms. Johnson is not listed in Martindale-Hubbell.

Ms. Johnson graduated from the Washington University School of Law in 1983. Ms Johnson was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1984 and the South Carolina Bar in 1988.

Ms. Johnson practiced with Ricci and Roberts, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida from 1983 to 1984. From 1984 to 1987, she served as staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, representing clients in family, consumer, landlord/tenant, and immigration law. Since 1987, Ms. Johnson has been the Senior Staff Attorney for Legal Services of Western Carolina in Greenville, South Carolina. She and her staff serve clients in the areas of family, consumer, landlord/tenant, and public benefits law.

Ms. Johnson described her practice over the past five years as 20% civil and 80% domestic.

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

(1) Herring v. State Health and Human Service Finance, No. 95-UP-136. One of the few cases involving state determinations on Medicaid that has been successfully litigated by a claimant on the appellate level.

(2) Greenville County Dept. of Social Services v. JoEva Reeder et al. Custody case involving abused three year old girl with sickle cell anemia whose perpetrator was unknown.

(3) In re: Clyde Bergen, an SSI case involving a six year old boy with a severe hearing impairment. Case concluded with boy obtaining benefits, which allowed him to get needed surgery to prevent serious permanent impairment and enabled his family to negate future dependence on government benefits.

(4) Duck v. Jenkins, 375 S.E.2d 178 (S.C. App. 1988). Representation of birth mother seeking visitation with her son.

(5) Joiner v. Doerrfeld and Konz, 510 So.2d 309 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1986). Representation of a 16-year old mother whose consent for adoption had been obtained through duress and placement had been premature under Florida law. As a result of this case, Florida legislature passed new laws regarding adoptions.

Ms. Johnson has personally handled the following appeals:

(1) Tammie Duck v. Vivian Jenkins, 375 S.E.2d 178 (S.C. App. 1988).

(2) James T. Joiner v. Baby Doe, 510 So.2d 309 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 1986).

The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Johnson 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 Ms. Johnson's temperament would be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Ms. Johnson 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. Johnson is married and has one child.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Johnson 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. Johnson has managed her financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Ms. Johnson is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

| Printed Page 490, Feb. 6 | Printed Page 510, Feb. 6 |

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