South Carolina General Assembly
117th Session, 2007-2008
Journal of the House of Representatives

Thursday, January 11, 2007
(Statewide Session)

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 a.m.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by Rev. Charles E. Seastrunk, Jr., as follows:

Our thought for today is from Psalm 19:14: "Let the words of my mouth be acceptable to you, O Lord."
Let us pray. God of glory, may Your wondrous creation be always on our minds and our lips. Give us words that have meaning for the good of Your people for whom we serve. Give these Representatives and staff the love, service and compassion to accomplish the tasks before them. Guard and guide each as they strive to serve this State. Bless our Nation, President, State, Governor, Speaker and all who serve. Protect our defenders of freedom as they protect us. Lord, hear our prayer. Amen.

Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

MOTION ADOPTED

Rep. CEIPS moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of U.S. Army Major General William Cobb of Beaufort, which was agreed to.

REPORT RECEIVED

The following was received:

Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications

Date Draft Report Issued:   Thursday, January 11, 2007
Date and Time Final Report Issued:   12:00 Noon on Tuesday,

January 16, 2007

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 12:00 noon.

Judicial Merit Selection Commission

January 11, 2007

Dear Members of the General Assembly:

Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's report of candidate qualifications. This report is designed to assist you in determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found all candidates discussed in this report to be qualified.

The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified means that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office and the Commission's evaluative criteria. The attached report details each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria.

Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 noon on Tuesday, January 16, 2007. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until 12:00 noon on Tuesday, January 16, 2007. In sum, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate's candidacy until the time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's report of candidate qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact the Commission office at 212-6092.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Chairman
F.G. Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman

Judicial Merit Selection Commission

January 11, 2007
Members of the South Carolina General Assembly
South Carolina State House
Columbia, South Carolina

Dear Fellow Members:

This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate's contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate's behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Fall 2006 screening.

Section 2-19-70(C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (Commission). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-70(C) provides that "the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate's qualifications" (emphasis added). Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding their candidacy; please note that six members of the Commission also are legislators.

In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the 48-hour period expires following the release of the Commission's report. The Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours have expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates' qualifications.

The Commission would again like to remind members of the General Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense and must be considered when determining a candidate's fitness for judicial office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at 803-212-6629.

Sincerely,
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Chairman
F.G. Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman

INTRODUCTION

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law that went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.

The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experiences (lawyers, teachers, businessmen, bankers, and advocates for various organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental health, and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:

(1)   survey of the bench and bar;

(2)   SLED and FBI investigation;

(3)   credit investigation;

(4)   grievance investigation;

(5)   study of application materials;

(6)   verification of ethics compliance;

(7)   search of newspaper articles;

(8)   conflict of interest investigation;

(9)   court schedule study;

(10)   study of appellate record;

(11)   court observation; and

(12)   investigation of complaints.

While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact a candidate's fitness for judicial service.

The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc. is his completed and sworn questionnaire.

Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings.

The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision.

This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Appellate Court, Circuit Court, Family Court, and Administrative Law Court.

John W. Kittredge
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Kittredge since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kittredge meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Kittredge was born in 1956. He is fifty years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Kittredge provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kittredge.

Judge Kittredge demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Kittredge reported that he has made $66 in campaign expenditures in postage, stationery and printing for a letter to about 150 members of the General Assembly in the Spring of 2006 regarding his intent to seek re-election to the Court of Appeals.

Judge Kittredge reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Kittredge reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Kittredge to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Kittredge described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Jan. 2000   15th Annual Criminal Law Update;
May 2000   Circuit Judges' Association Meeting;
Aug. 2000   Annual Judicial Conference;
Jan. 2001     16th Annual Criminal Law Update;
May 2001   Circuit Judges' Association Conference;
Aug. 2001   Annual Judicial Conference;
Jan. 2002     17th Annual Criminal Law Update;
May 2002   Circuit Judges' Association Conference;
Aug. 2002   Annual Judicial Conference;
Jan. 2003     18th Annual Criminal Law Update;
May 2003   Circuit Judges' Association Conference;
May 2004   Circuit Judges' Association Conference (presenter);
Aug. 2003   Annual Judicial Conference;
Aug. 2004   Annual Judicial Conference;
Dec. 2004   Greenville County CLE (presenter);
May 2005   Family Court Judges' Conference (presenter);
Aug. 2006   Family Court JCLE 'Mini Summit';
Aug. 2006   Annual Judicial Conference."

Judge Kittredge reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have been a teacher/participant in many CLEs/JCLEs. In family court, I was for several years responsible for the program and/or a presenter at the annual judges' conference. Similarly, I organized and/or presented at the circuit judges' annual conference for many years."

Judge Kittredge reported that he has published the following:

"Around 1978 I wrote a paper entitled The Inevitability of Police Discretion which was published in the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association magazine. An article on juvenile justice was published in the Greenville News in December, 1992."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittredge did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittredge did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kittredge has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Kittredge was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Kittredge reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Kittredge appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Kittredge appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Kittredge was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I served as a law clerk to the Honorable William W. Wilkins, Jr., then United States District Judge, from August 1982 through 1984. From September 1984 until July 1991, I worked at the law firm of Wilkins, Nelson and Kittredge. I had a litigation practice.

I also worked as a part-time assistant solicitor from 1984 until mid-1985, and then again for several months in 1986 to try several cases at the request of the Solicitor. As an assistant solicitor, I prosecuted many criminal cases.

I was elected by the General Assembly to the family court bench in 1991. In 1996, I was elected by the General Assembly to the circuit court bench. In 2003, I was elected by the General Assembly to the Court of Appeals."

Judge Kittredge reported he has held the following judicial offices:

"I was elected by the General Assembly to the family court bench on May 8, 1991, and reelected in May 1995. The family court is a court of limited jurisdiction. In 1996, I was elected to an at-large circuit court judgeship (seat 11). In 1998, I was elected to a resident circuit court judgeship (13th circuit, seat 4). The circuit court is South Carolina's general jurisdiction court, civil and criminal. In 2003, I was elected to the Court of Appeals, where I currently serve."

Judge Kittredge provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   State v. Simmons, 360 S.C. 33, 599 S.E.2d 448 (2004). I sat with the Supreme Court in this death penalty case. I authored the opinion. This capital case involved issues of juror voir dire, guidelines for juror dismissal after trial has begun, and propriety of a death sentence when an aggravating circumstance has been invalidated.

(b)   White's Mill Colony, Inc. v. Williams, 363 S.C. 117, 609 S.E.2d 811 (Ct. App. 2005). This appeal concerned multiple issues arising from competing claims of various landowners to access an abutting man-made body of water.

(c)   State v. Crocker, 366 S.C. 394, 621 S.E. 890 (Ct. App. 2005). This appeal arose from a murder and drug related conviction. The opinion addressed the relationship between personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and venue. As to the drug related charge, the context of the jurisdictional and venue challenges concerned acts occurring in more than one county. Appellant also raised evidentiary challenges.

(d)   Queens' Grant II v. Greenwood Development Corp., 368 S.C. 342, 628 S.E.2d 902 (Ct. App. 2006). This case, involving cross-appeals, concerned the construction of agreements related to horizontal property regimes and the ability of the developer to amend covenants, particularly the ability of the developer to unilaterally increase common area maintenance assessments. The appeal also implicated the horizontal property regime act. Many procedural and substantive issues were raised, including the appeal of an interlocutory order (i.e., denial of summary judgment), rule against perpetuities, etc.

(e)   Murphy v. Owens-Corning, 346 S.C. 37, 550 S.C. 2d 589 (Ct. App. 2001). During my service on the circuit bench, I was appointed to the court of appeals for an en banc proceeding. The case involved an exception to the final judgment rule, thus permitting appeal of an interlocutory order because it affected a substantial right and struck part of a pleading. The substance of the appeal dealt with the applicability of the 'door closing statute' in an asbestos induced injury. I wrote the opinion reversing (7 to 2) the original panel decision. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed as modified. 356 S.C. 592, 590 S.E.2d 479 (2003).

(f)   State v. Thompson, 363 S.C. 192, 609 S.E.2d 556 (Ct. App. 2005). This appeal addressed the validity of a search warrant when the warrant is overbroad and invalid in part. The court held that overbroad portions in a search warrant may be 'severed' from portions supported by probable cause. The case also dealt with a challenge based on 'staleness.'

(g)   Wehle v. SC Retirement System, 363 S.C. 394, 611 S.E.2d 240 (2005). I was appointed as a special referee by the Supreme Court. The case was brought by retired state employees as a class action against the state retirement system alleging the system had failed to properly credit unused annual leave. The Supreme Court adopted my report and recommendation."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Kittredge's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Kittredge to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Kittredge "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Kittredge is married to Lila Graham Hewell Kittredge. He has three children.

Judge Kittredge reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar 1982 - present;

(b)   Greenville County Bar 1982 - present."

Judge Kittredge provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   First Presbyterian Church of Greenville;

(b)   Sunday School officer and Denominational Concerns Committee;

(c)   Greenville Saltwater Sportfishing Club; Greenville Country Club;

(d)   Child Evangelism Fellowship."

Judge Kittredge additionally provided:

"My academic background includes summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, Order of the Coif and Wig and Robe.

I have served as a member of the South Carolina Judiciary since 1991. I have enjoyed and benefited from my years of judicial service, the last three on the Court of Appeals.

As a trial judge, I (1) served as chief administrative judge on numerous occasions in family and circuit court; (2) formed Bench/Bar committees in family and circuit court to facilitate productive and positive communication between judges and practicing attorneys on matters affecting the court; (3) assembled and participated in the committee which resulted in the implementation of the successful Alternate Dispute Resolution Program in Greenville County; (4) was assigned and tried many complex cases, including medical malpractice, products liability, constitutional challenges to state statutes, etc.; (5) was responsible for the organization, scheduling and presentation of many JCLEs at family court and circuit court conferences; (6) was assigned numerous death penalty cases by the supreme court, including death penalty post-conviction relief; (7) served on numerous occasions as an acting associate justice of the supreme court; and (8) was appointed many times by the supreme court as a special referee in matters in the supreme court's original jurisdiction and in all such cases the supreme court has unanimously adopted my Report and Recommendation in published opinions.

For the past three years, I have worked hard to make a successful transition to the appellate bench. I am no stranger to hard work. I enjoy the challenge of novel and difficult issues we frequently encounter at the appellate level. I hope my work product (legal opinions) is acceptable to the Bar and the JMSC. I have striven to write understandable and meaningful opinions for the Bench and Bar-hard writing makes easy reading. I also enjoy my colleagues on the Court of Appeals.

Whether as a trial judge or appellate judge, I have done my best to treat everyone with respect and kindness.

I thank the JMSC for its consideration of my application for re-election."

The Commission noted that Judge Kittredge has an outstanding reputation as a jurist. They commented on his great intellect which has ably served him in discharging his responsibilities on the Court of Appeals. The Commission found Judge Kittredge qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Court of Appeals.

Timothy L. Brown
Court of Appeals, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Brown meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Brown was born in 1946. He is 60 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Brown provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Brown.

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 communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Brown reported that he has made $308 in campaign expenditures for stamps, envelopes, paper, and typing services.

Judge Brown testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Brown testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Brown described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"01/26/2001     Family Law Section;

05/03/2001     2001 Family Court Judges Conference;

08/23/2001     Judicial Conference;

12/04/2001     Tips from the Bench;

12/07/2001     Family Court Bench/Bar;

01/25/2002     Family Law Section;

05/01/2002     Family Court Judges Conference;

08/01/2002     SC Trial Lawyers Convention;

08/22/2002     Judicial Conference;

12/06/2002     Family Court Bench/Bar;

12/13/2002     Tips From the Bench III;

01/24/2003     Family Law Part II;

04/30/2003     Family Court Judges Conference;

08/07/2003     SC Trial Lawyers Conference;

08/21/2003     Judicial Conference;

12/05/2003     Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;

12/12/2003     Tips From the Bench IV;

01/23/2004     Family Law Section;

04/28/2004     Family Court Judges Conference;

08/05/2004     SC Trial Lawyers Convention;

08/19/2004     Judicial Conference;

08/29/2004     Judicial Oath of Office;

12/03/2004     Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;

03/18/2005     Children's Issues in Family Court;

04/27/2005     Family Court Judges Conference;

08/03/2005     SC Trial Lawyers Convention;

12/02/2005     Family Court Bench/Bar;

12/09/2005     Tips From the Bench;

01/27/2006     Family Law Section;

04/26/2006     2006 Family Court Judges Conference;

07/10/2006     Orientation for New Family Court Judges;

08/04/2006     SC Trial Lawyers Convention;

08/23/2006     Annual Judicial Conference."

Judge Brown reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"Other courses have been taught; unable to locate material.

1998 Family Court Bench/Bar Update 11/6/1998 Topic Enforceability of Agreements between Spouses;

2000 Family Court Bench/Bar - 12/01/2000; Topic Abuse and Neglect Cases: Out of Court Statements by Children;

2001 Tips From the Bench II - 12/14/2001; Topic - Divorce/Separation Proceedings;

2002 Tips From the Bench III - 12/13/2002 - Topic - Custody and Termination of Parental Rights;

Children's Law Office - oral lectures, various topics;

Lectures during Guardian ad Litem training - law & procedure;

Lectures for Charleston & Greenville County Bars and American Trial Lawyers Association."

Judge Brown reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   The Substantive Law of Custody - (printed & hyperlinked to 2,000 pages of data and sold by the South Carolina Bar and provided to all Family Court Judges in their notebook. (2nd Ed. July, 2006);

(b)   The Law of Contempt published by the South Carolina Bar and provided to all the Circuit Court Judges and part of the Family Court Judges Bench Book. (August, 2006);

(Note: The material covers many topics such as in personam jurisdiction, procedure rules, constitutional issues, all of which apply to all courts.

(c)   Editorial Opinion in National Judicial College 'Case In Point' Winter/Spring 2002 Edition. The Ukraine Free Enterprise Business and Law - A Judge's Perspective."

Judge Brown also provided the Commission a copy of his paper on Terminating Parental Rights.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Brown did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Brown did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Brown has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Brown was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Brown reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Brown reported the following military service: "USMC Sgt.; 2173965; Honorable discharge."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Brown appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Brown appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Brown was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"1976 - Legal Services - I handled all types of trials and cases in Circuit and Family Court;

1979 - Private Practice: I worked part time for the Solicitor's Office and for the Department of Social Services. I handled what a general practitioner does; e.g., land boundary and title lawsuits, freedom of religion cases, tort cases, domestic matters and federal criminal defense and appeals. The largest number of cases were domestic, the largest fee producing were tort cases, and the more interesting and fee producing were land and appellate cases;

1998 - Family Court Judge, Seat No. 6, 13th Judicial Circuit."

Judge Brown reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:     15%;

(b)   State:       85%."

Judge Brown reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       35%;

(b)   Criminal:     15%;

(c)   Domestic:   50%."

Judge Brown reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       15%;

(b)   Non-jury:   85%."

Judge Brown provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Brown's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   In answering this question I have attempted to understand the meaning of 'significance' and to diversify the type of cases. A case may have produced no money or precedent yet have been significant. For example, early in my legal career I raised the question of equal protection for indigent children in that case law asserted the Supreme Court reviewed the record for errors on children's cases. However, there existed no means for a poor child to obtain a transcript. Therefore they could not get a review. This issue was briefed and raised as part of or ancillary to the case of Thomas, Jr. v. Steven Ritchie Holm-Hanson. This action arose out of a 1977 case. The issues were made moot by the providing of the transcript by Mr. Thomas. I argued the likelihood of repetition of this claim as a basis for continuing the appeal. Legal Aid had filed a similar motion. They used my brief. My recollection is the court dismissed my case as moot yet made provisions to provide transcripts for indigent children under the Legal Aid case. The name of which I do not know. Hence I would cite Thomas v. Holm-Hanson filed in the South Carolina Supreme Court approximately November or December of 1978 or January of 1979. (Constitutional issue) (I no longer have my brief);

(b)   Prior to the adoption of 19-1-180 of the South Carolina Code of Law and the SCREV (specifically 601) and Sec. 19-11-25 and given the absence of DNA evidence, a child who was not shown to be competent or simply unable to testify could not testify about their sexual abuse. Therefore the abuser could not be found guilty under the abuse and neglect statutes of South Carolina. If this could not be established one could not remove the child. In this fact setting I came up with a theory (which in essence paralleled the now existent 19-1-180). The lower court adopted the theory. An appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court followed. As a private attorney I represented DSS on the appeal. Although the appellant prevailed in a well written decision by Judge Bell, a lady Senator I believe named Smith sent an aid with whom I met. I am under the impression this case led to 19-1-180. SCDSS v. Doe, 292 SC 11, 355 SE2d 543 (Ct. App. 1987);

(c)   An insurance contract existed with a named beneficiary. The owner of the policy died. The owner was under a temporary order to leave the insurance in place. Under that status a different person (wife) was the beneficiary although the decedent had the day before sent in the change. Peggy B. Williamson was the wife. Judge Simmons sitting as a special circuit judge ruled in favor of my client Ms. Williamson. An appeal followed. This case involved many legal issues, e.g. summary judgment, subject jurisdiction, Rule 60, scriveners errors, dead man's statute, the key issue is a case of first impression per the lower court judge who recognized as South Carolina precedent allowing a prior beneficiary who was to remain so per a court order to take over a new beneficiary properly changed under insurance law, a contract and the terms of the policy. I did not represent Ms. Williamson in the family court but handled this circuit court insurance case. Ms. Williamson was granted summary judgment. The appeal followed. This is a case of first impression clarifying a parties ability to bind themselves in open court even as to insurance policy contracts. Lane v. Williams. 307 SC 230, 414 SE2d 177 (1992). (I no longer have a copy of my brief);

(d)   In a circuit court case, Greenville County, I handled a freedom of religion case. (Ledford v. South Carolina Highway Department, 92-CP-23-486). Freedom of religion is inherently important, so much so it is constitutionally protected. After being 'told' the same case had been lost several times before, we prevailed. After the trial began and my brief filed the Highway Department sought a thirty (30) day continuance to prepare further. That was granted. It thereafter conceded and no appeal followed;

(e)   In another case of first impression a lady, who believing herself divorced remarried. Although she was therefore not married to her 2nd husband and by law that marriage is void ab initio, I was able to get an 'equitable division' of the property. An appeal followed and the lower court was affirmed. (White v. White, 283 SC 348, 323 SE2d 521 (S.C. 1984) (Subject matter jurisdiction). This is the first case to allow such relief.

I handled many other appeals. It is difficult to discern the relative significance of each. For example, I received a supersedeas of a lower court judge's Order (J. Board) and ultimately got a Writ of Habeas Corpus picking up the child from Texas when the father who had been charged with the murder of the mother had taken the child. Justice Ness cited a case which was to divest the lower court of jurisdiction when an appeal was made, since the lower court had attempted to alter the ex-parte order. Thereafter the appellate rule to that effect was issued. I tried the case which defined 'skin' as a bodily organ for abuse and neglect purposes. I cleared titles in a series of contested trial to the property now known as 'The Cliffs'. I appealed the failure of a judge to terminate alimony when a woman was living with her lover and getting alimony. This appeal for Dr. Fridy was possibly a consideration leading to the termination of alimony statute. It is clear that each of them are significant to those involved; however, one must choose. I am available to provide further details upon request."

The following is Judge Brown's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Greenville County DSS v. Maxine Allen & Ralph M. Whitworth. Unpublished Opinion No. 93-UP-130 (Copy enclosed) (Respondent).

The Solicitor's office signed off on my brief. Also, I did the oral argument. This case was important that it allowed the use of an expert as to sexual abuse factors and the child's videotaped testimony. As a Respondent's brief it is framed by Appellant's issues;

(b)   DSS v. (Doe) Todd; 292 SC 11, 355 SE2d 543 (Ct. App. 1987) (Respondent);

(c)   Knowles v. Knowles, 94 UP 255 (Ct. App. 1994) (Appellant);

(d)   Leppard v. Leppard, (Respondent) Note: The child died and appeal became moot. The case was dismissed by agreement. (Ct. App. Docket No. 95-845;

(e)   Fridy v. Fridy, (Appellant) 95-UP-309 (Ct. App. 1995);

(f)   Frye v. Frye, 323 SC 72, 448 SE2d 586 (Ct. App. 1994) (Respondent);

(g)   Morris v. Morris, 335 SC 525, 517 SE2d 720 (Ct. App. 1999)

(Respondent). Note: I prepared the Brief, Mr. Bannister filed the Brief and did the oral argument because I was elected to the Family Court bench.

Note: I've included two (2) extra briefs because of not completing the case where the child died or the one after I was elected. I attempted to spread out the supplied material over time and where representing both Appellants and Respondents. I have handled a number of other appeals if more are needed."

The following is Judge Brown's account of the criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"In spite of being a part time federal public defender for a good number of years I have had no criminal appeals. The appellate division did none for me except to follow up on one required 'no merit' type of appeal. Neither have I been called back on any PCR hearings. When I quit doing federal public defender work Federal Magistrate 'Bucky' Catoe sent me a nice letter telling me I was the only part-time defender against whom he had received no complaints."

Judge Brown reported he has held the following judicial office:
He was elected by the Legislature of South Carolina to the family court bench on May 6, 1998.

"The family court is statutorily created and has only statutorily granted jurisdiction. This involves domestic/family matters, abuse & neglect and juvenile crime. The same rules of evidence, civil procedure, constitutional due process and equal protection, criminal issues and rules of procedure apply to family court as well as to the circuit court. The key distinction is the absence of a jury; the family court decides facts and applies the law."

Judge Brown provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"No reported opinions; Only one (1) Appellate decision of which I am aware.

(a)   Olin Thomas v. Janel Thomas; Case No.: 98-DR-36-0388;

(b)   Gerald Lee Culler v. Elizabeth Joy Board, Bruce Evans Board and John and Jane Doe; Case No.: 99-DR-39-1235 & 99-DR-39-1264;

(c)   Larry Lee Davis v. Lynne S. Venesky f/k/a Lynne S. Davis; Case No.: 98-DR-23-5491;

(d)   Ian Morton v. Diane C. Morton; Case No.: 03-DR-23-1106;

(e)   Joyce B. Borders v. Ford H. Borders; Case No.: 01-DR-23-2942;

(f)     Thomas 'Tony' Bagwell & Tammy Bagwell v. Tracy D. Bagwell, Steven Jefferson, Mary Bagwell; Case No.: 01-DR-23-4611;

(g)   DSS v. Godfrey, et al.; Case No.: 2005-DR-23-3035;

(h)   DSS v. Crystal Long, et al.; 2006-UP-271;

(i)     Judith K. Byrd. v. Ernest X. Byrd; 2002-DR-23-1619."

Judge Brown reported that "since only one case has been appealed, the orders I have submitted are not in my opinion 'significant'; however, they are orders which in some instances contain interesting legal points and other instances contain matters which come before family court judges with great regularity. As to the one appealed case it was affirmed in an Unpublished Opinion; 06-UP-271."

Judge Brown reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"Prior to being elected I ran for family court one (1) time (1996) withdrawing and another time (1996/1997) losing by one (1) vote."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Brown's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Brown to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Brown "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Brown is married to Sharon Brown. He has two children.

Judge Brown reported that he was a member of the following bar association and professional association:
"SC Bar Association."

Judge Brown provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Masons - no office held;

(b)   Shriners - no office held;

(c)   Rotary - no office held."

Judge Brown additionally provided:

"When evaluating something I attempt to consider information generated when the present issue was not being considered by the actor. For example, I look to see how the juvenile acted toward the police, teacher or classmates and review the relevant discipline records.

In my case I have a number of written articles which when reviewed may provide some insight. I have received very high ratings from the Bar. In fact, I believe the 2nd highest on good demeanor evaluations from the Bar when last done and at or close to the top in other categories. I no longer have the evaluation.

I wrote my aunts and uncles a general thank you letter over fifteen (15) years ago. Eventually I paid to have that thank you letter to all the people of that generation published in Charleston, Columbia & Greenville in each cities' respective main newspaper. I am enclosing a copy of that letter.

To help a justice in the Ukraine I wrote an article for him to use. He later published it without change under both names. It is about the transition of a Communist Government. I am enclosing a copy.

These are the types of things that will provide an honest insight into a candidate for any position.

I would very much like to sit down personally with each legislator. That does not always seem to happen. It is said one can know another by their work. I submit mine for your consideration.

When first reported out in my first effort to become judge, the report used language something like exceeds all expectations for a judge. I have always been very proud of that."

The Commission found Judge Brown to be a very knowledgeable judge with a good judicial temperament. The Commission noted Judge Brown has very ably served the Family Court bench. The Commission found him qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Lesley McAllister Coggiola
Court of Appeals, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Coggiola meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Ms. Coggiola was born in 1944. She is 62 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Coggiola provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Coggiola.

Ms. Coggiola demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Ms. Coggiola reported that she has made $913 in campaign expenditures for:
"Photograph $125 July, 2006;
Paper $35 August 2005;
Stamps $78 August, 2006;
Stationery $675 June, 2006."

Ms. Coggiola testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Ms. Coggiola testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Ms. Coggiola to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions fell below the level of expectation generally met by an applicant.

Ms. Coggiola described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   10/21/2005   Nomination Process for U.S. Supreme Court Justices;

(b)   10/14/200   ABCs of Effective & Ethical;

(c)   9/21/2005   Ethics 2005 Seminar;

(d)   9/20/2005   South Carolina Legal History;

(e)   8/25/2005   New Appellate Law Clerks and Staff Attorneys Seminar;

(f)   6/9/2005     Post Conviction Relief Seminar;

(g)   4/15/2005   Crawford: A Hearsay Chimera or a Confrontation   Clause;

(h)   2/22/2005   Tort Reform or Torts Deformed;

(i)     1/25/2005   Civility, Presidents & Professions;

(j)     9/27/2004   2004 SC Public Defenders;

(k)   9/21/2004   Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE (JBOIC);

(l)     8/20/2004   Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE;

(m)   8/19/2004   Appellate Law Clerks & Staff Attorneys Seminar;

(n)   7/23/2004   Update on US Supreme Court;

(o)   6/18/2004   Recurring Issues in SC Criminal;

(p)   6/2/2004     Bluebooking and Editing;

(q)   5/14/2004   Bench Memorandums and Anders;

(r)   2/24/2004   Coming Technology for State and;

(s)   1/23/2004   19th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(t)     1/20/2004   Pros and Cons of Tort Reform;

(u)   10/30/2003   20th Anniversary of the Court of appeals;

(v)   10/21/2003   Class Actions;

(w)   9/29/2003   Celebrating 40 years of Gideon;

(x)   9/23/2003   Civility and Professionalism;

(y)   9/5/2003     Difficult Clients & Difficult Cases;

(z)   5/16/2003   Criminal Law Hot Tips;

(aa)   9/30/2002   New Strategies for Difficult Times;

(bb)   5/10/2002   Criminal Law Hot Tips;

(cc)   1/25/2002   17th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(dd)   10/10/2001   Does a Difference Make a Difference;

(ee)   2/21/2006   New Court Developments;

(ff)   7/5/2006     National Association of Appellate Court Attorneys' Annual Conference;

(gg)   South Carolina Judicial Conference, 2004, 2005, 2006."

Ms. Coggiola reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"University of South Carolina, College of Criminal Justice, Criminal Law - taught a semester-long class on substantive law to undergraduates;
The American Court System - taught a semester-long class on the American Court System to undergraduates;
University of South Carolina, School of Law, spring semester, 2002-present,
Trial Advocacy - taught law students how to handle both civil and criminal trials."

"I have been a presenter at numerous Continuing Legal Education Programs for lawyers, such as:

(a)   Hot Tips for Criminal Lawyers, S.C. Bar, 2001, 2002, Facilitator of a seminar of ten minute tips for practitioners;

(b)   ABCs of Effective and Ethical Practice, speaker, October 14, 2005 Spoke on the implications of Crawford v. Washington;

(c)   Does a Difference Make a Difference II, S.C. Bar, April 30, 2003;

(d)   Panel presentation of trial stories, S.C. Bar Annual Conference, January, 2001 (unsure of the date - presentation of meaningful experiences in the courtroom);

(e)   S.C. Public Defenders Conference, Appellate Process, October, 2004;
    (f)   S.C. Judicial Conference, 2004, 2005, 2006, Seminar for new law clerks and staff attorneys, presenting the Scope of Review;

(g)   Speaker at U.S.C. Law School, Women in Law, annually;

(h)   Guest speaker in classes at U.S.C. Law School, Ethics, Criminal Law, Criminal Practice."

Ms. Coggiola reported that she has published the following:
"Editorial Board - Appellate Practice in South Carolina, Toal Vafai and Muckenfuss (1999);
Currently working on the Fifth Edition of The Criminal Law of South Carolina, McAninch;
Numerous book reviews for The State newspaper."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Ms. Coggiola did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Coggiola did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Coggiola has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Coggiola was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Coggiola reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Ms. Coggiola reported that she has held the following public office:
"Commissioner - South Carolina Office of Indigent Defense (appointed by the Governor), April 2000 - October 2003; annual reports filed with the State Ethics Commission."
(6)   Physical Health:

Ms. Coggiola appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Ms. Coggiola appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Coggiola was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"South Carolina Court of Appeals, Columbia, South Carolina
Chief Staff Attorney, October 2003 to present. Supervise the activities of the legal and non-legal staff of the Staff Attorney's Office, including assigning cases and reviewing staff attorney work product. Advising the Court on motions, petitions and other matters pending before the Court. Conduct research, prepare reports, and draft orders, motion memoranda and other legal documents;
University of South Carolina, School of Law, Columbia, South Carolina
Adjunct Professor of Trial Advocacy, Spring 2003 to present;
Richland County Public Defender Corporation, Columbia, South Carolina.
Chief Public Defender, April, 1999 - October, 2003. Responsible for supervising the Public Defender's Office that provides court appointed representation to indigent clients in Richland County. Responsible for securing funding for the office from the State and County and supervising 32 employees of which 16 are Staff Attorneys. Also responsible for handling a major felony trial caseload from preparation through trial, including capital cases.
Deputy Public Defender, April 1998 - April 1999. Responsible for assisting the Chief Public Defender in supervising the office while maintaining a felony trial caseload.
Assistant Public Defender, December 1992 - October 1994; August 1989 - February 1991. Represented indigent clients charged with criminal offenses at the trial level;
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina.
Of Counsel, August 1997 - April 1998. Provided trial preparation and mediation support for business litigation and criminal law cases handled by the firm;
South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, South Carolina
Staff Attorney, October 1994 - August 1997; February 1991 - June 1992.
Represented indigent clients in criminal appeals. Responsible for brief writing and oral arguments before the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the South Carolina Supreme Court;
South Carolina Death Penalty Resource Center, Columbia, South Carolina.
Staff Attorney, June 1992 - December 1992.
Represented clients on death row in their State and Federal Appeals. Assisted trial lawyers in preparation for capital trials;
The Honorable Carol Connor, Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Columbia, South Carolina.
Judicial Law Clerk, August 1988 - August 1989. Assisted Judge Connor in all criminal and civil cases including preparation of orders, research, seminars and conferences."

Ms. Coggiola reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   federal:   0;

(b)   state:     2001-2003, 100%."

Ms. Coggiola reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   civil:     0;

(b)   criminal:   For the past three years, I have been at the Court of Appeals, but before that, my practice was 100% criminal law;

(c)   domestic:   0."

Ms. Coggiola reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       2001-2003 approximately 5%;

(b)   Non-jury:   2001-2003 approximately 95%;

I have been at the Court of Appeals since October 2003."

Ms. Coggiola provided that she most often served as Chief Counsel.

The following is Ms. Coggiola's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Jason Scott Byram, Trial counsel and Appellate Counsel, capital case; State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 485 S.E.2d 360 (1997);

(b)   State v. Lino Delacruz, Trial counsel, capital case, October, 2000.

A capital case with a client diagnosed with Asbergers Syndrome. Sentenced to life without parole;

(c)   State v. Gail Cutro, Trial counsel, August, 2000.

A high profile trial to completion on charges of murder for the deaths of two children and serious injury of one child, all in her daycare. The defense challenged the State's theory of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. The trial resulted in a mistrial (hung jury);

(d)   State v. John David Barnett, Trial counsel, November 2001.

Mr. Barnett was tried on two charges of Burglary 1st and two charges of kidnapping in a high profile case. Guilty verdicts on all charges;

(e)   State v. Nathaniel Mitchell, Trial counsel, May, 2002.

Mr. Mitchell was tried on the charge of homicide by child abuse. The trial included the examination of a number of medical experts. Guilty verdict."

The following is Ms. Coggiola's account of five criminal appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 158, 485 S.E.2d 367 (1997) - May 12, 1997;

(b)   State v. Horne, 324 S.C. 372, 478 S.E.2d 289 (Ct. App. 1996) - October 7, 1996;

(c)   State v. Conyers, 326 S.C. 263, 487 S.E.2d 181 (1997) - June 9, 1997;

(d)   Wolfe v. State, 326 S.C. 158, 485 S.E.2d 367 (1997) - May 12, 1997;

(e)   State v. Wilson, unreported - March 18, 1997."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Coggiola's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Coggiola to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals bench."

Ms. Coggiola is not married. She has two children.

Ms. Coggiola reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar: Served twice on the House of Delegates (once in 2005 and unsure of the date of my first term); Criminal Law Section, Former Chair, 2003;

(b)   Richland County Bar;

(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association: Former Board Member (unsure of date);

(d)   National Association of Appellate Court Attorneys."

Ms. Coggiola provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Community Mediation Center, Board Member;

(b)   Women's Shelter, Board Member;

(c)   Children's Chance (for families of children with cancer), Board Member."

The Commission noted Ms. Coggiola's extensive criminal and appellate experience. They also commented on her dedicated legal service in the public sector of this state. The Commission found her qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.

John C. Hayes III
Court of Appeals, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hayes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Hayes was born in 1945. He is 61 years old and a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Judge Hayes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hayes.

Judge Hayes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Hayes reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Hayes testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Hayes testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Hayes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Hayes described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Annual Criminal Law Update (2001 - 2005);

(b)   Annual Judicial Conference (2001 - 2005);

(c)   Circuit Court Judges Association Annual Meeting (2001 - 2005);

(d)   S.C. Bar Criminal and Civil Annual Update (2001 - 2005)."

Judge Hayes reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have been on programs for the Solicitors Association, The South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, The South Carolina Defense Trial Lawyers Association, the South Carolina Bar's CLE Division, The New Judges Training for New Circuit Court Judges and the Chief Judges School."

Judge Hayes reported that he has published the following:
"Mail Fraud - 22 SCLR 434 (1970);
Torts - IntraFamily Immunity - 21 SCLR 813 (1969)."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Hayes did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hayes did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hayes has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Hayes was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Hayes reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Hayes reported the following military service:
"U.S. Army Reserve - E-6, Serial No. 249-74-1717, 1968 - 1974. Honorably Discharged. NCO of the Year (1973)."

Judge Hayes reported he has held the following public offices:
"Solicitor - City of Rock Hill - appointed (approx. 1 year);
South Carolina House of Representative - 1980 - 1984 - Elected;
South Carolina Senate - 1984 - 1991 - Elected;
South Carolina Coastal Council (Fifth Congressional District) 1980 - Elected;
Ethics reports always timely filed."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Hayes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Hayes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Hayes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1971 - 1972   Law Clerk for Chief Justice Joseph R. Moss;
1972 - 1991   Hayes, Brunson and Gatlin.

General Practice - 1972 - 1991.

My practice was primarily civil litigation. I also, throughout my practice, handled worker's compensation cases, social security disability cases, simple wills, and some estates. I have also handled real estate transactions including title searches and loan closings;
1991 - present   Circuit Court Judge."

Judge Hayes reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   infrequent;

(b)   State:     very frequent."

Judge Hayes reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     90%;

(b)   Criminal:   5%;

(c)   Domestic:   5%."

Judge Hayes reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     80%;

(b)   Non-jury:   20%."

Judge Hayes provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as "Sole/Chief" counsel.

The following is Judge Hayes's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Duncan v. York County, 267 S.C. 327, 228 S.E.2d 92.
The suit challenged the constitutionality of the Home Rule Act. I represented the Plaintiff in the Original Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court;

(b)   Eckerd v. Carpenter Decorating, U. S. District Court.
This was a fire damage case where the ultimate damages exceeded two million dollars. I represented Carpenter Decorating. A verdict was returned by the jury in favor of Carpenter Decorating Company;

(c)   Belk v. Doe, Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.
This was a tort case against n unknown motorist. I defended John Doe. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant;

(d)   State v. Littlejohn, York County Court of General Sessions.
This was a murder case. I defended Littlejohn, who was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment;

(e)   Bothelo v. Bycura, 282 S.C. 578, 320 S.E.2d 59, South Carolina Court of Appeals, March 30, 1984.
This case established the requirement that a chiropractic expert must testify to the standard of care required of a chiropractor. I represented Plaintiff. This case's law now has been mooted by further opinion."

The following is Judge Hayes's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Russell v. Ashe Brick Co., 267 S.C. 640, 230 S.E.2d 814, S.C. Supreme Court, December 7, 1976;

(b)   Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12, S.C. Supreme Court, January 17, 1974;

(c)   Giles v. Parker, Opinion No. 1621, S.C. Court of Appeals, February 4, 1991;

(d)   Belk v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 271 S.C. 24, 244 S.E.2d, S.C. Supreme Court, May 18, 1978;

(e)   Stroud v. Stroud, 299 S.C. 394, 385 S.E.2d 744, S.C. Court of Appeals, September 5, 1989."

The following is Judge Hayes's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Russell v. Ashe Brick Co., 267 S.C. 640, 230 S.E.2d 814, S.C. Supreme Court, December 7, 1976;

(b)   Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12, S.C. Supreme Court

January 17, 1974;

(c)   Giles v. Parker, Opinion No. 1621, S.C. Court of Appeals, February 4, 1991;

(d)   Belk v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 271 S.C. 24, 244 S.E.2d, S.C. Supreme Court, May 18, 1978;

(e)   Stroud v. Stroud, 299 S.C. 394, 385 S.E.2d 744, S.C. Court of Appeals, September 5, 1989."

Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following judicial office:
"South Carolina Circuit Court - 1991 - present - Elected."

Judge Hayes provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Burbach v. Investors Management Corp., 326 S.C. 492, 484 S.E.2d 119;

(b)   Glaze v. Grooms, 324 W.E. 249, 478 S.E.2d 841;

(c)   Blank order and summary judgment orders in Greenville asbestos cases, 200 (Total: over 200);

(d)   Keith L. Simpson v. State, 97-CP-42-1911, Unreported;

(e)   State v. Thurmon O'Neil Smith, 2002-GS-46-2525 and 2526."

Judge Hayes further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"Court of Appeals 2003."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Hayes's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Hayes to be "eminently qualified for the position he is seeking." The Committee noted that it "has the utmost respect for his integrity and dedication to the law."

Judge Hayes is married to Sarah Lynn Dorsey Hayes. He has six children.

Judge Hayes reported that he was a member of the following bar association and professional association:
"South Carolina Bar."

Judge Hayes provided that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.

The Commission noted Judge Hayes' long and dedicated service to the Circuit Court bench. They commented on his outstanding knowledge of the law and how he is known for the fair administration of his courtroom. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

Robert N. Jenkins, Sr.
Court of Appeals, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jenkins meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Jenkins was born in 1947. He is 59 years old and a resident of Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Judge Jenkins provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jenkins.

Judge Jenkins demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Jenkins reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Jenkins testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Jenkins testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Jenkins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Jenkins described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have consistently satisfied CLE requirements in excess of basic requirements:

(a)   Orientation for new Family Court Judges (1996);

(b)   Annual Judicial Conference with emphasis on current legal development in criminal and Family Law (1996 - 2006);

(c)   Annual Family Law Judges Conference, current updates in areas of interest in Practice and Procedure and Substantive Development in Family Law (1996 - 2006);

(d)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, Nevada Annual Conference (1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006);

(e)   Evidence in Juvenile and Family Court, (1998);

(f)   Advance Family Law (1997, 2003);

(g)   National Judicial College: General Jurisdiction (2000);

(h)   S.C. Bar Criminal Law Comprehensive Review (1999);

(i)   Children Law Summit, (2006), sponsored by S.C. Court Administration."

Judge Jenkins reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have taught the Juvenile Law/Pre-Trial Diversion Course through the sponsorship of the Department of Youth Services and the local Solicitor's Office. It was a ten (10) week course designed to teach juveniles between ages 13-16 responsible civil conduct under the law; giving them exposures through site visits and guest presenters on law enforcement functions, (1986-88). I have served as a presenter for the SBA COMMITTEE for Indigent Representation on the topic of Judicial Responses to PRO SE Representation (1998). I have served as a presenter for the Family Court Judges Conference on topic of Judicial Ethics. (1998). I have served as a CLE presenter for programs sponsored by the S.C. Black Lawyers Association 2001, 2003 and 2006."

Judge Jenkins reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Jenkins did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jenkins did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jenkins has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Jenkins was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Jenkins reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Jenkins reported the following military service:
"8/66 - Reg. Air Force, E-5 (Staff Sergeant). In active reserve - 6/69 thru - 8/72; Honorable Discharge: 8/72."

Judge Jenkins reported he has held the following public offices:

"(a)   1979-1996 - Director, Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. Appointed through selection by quasi-public Board of Directors;

(b)   1984-86 - State Advisory Committee on Workers Compensation Laws - Appointed by the Governor of South Carolina;

(c)   1990-1996 - Board of Directors, South Carolina Protection and Advocacy System for the Handicapped, Inc. - Appointed by Board of Directors;

(d)   1991-1996 - The Citadel Board of Visitors - by designation for the State Superintendent of Education;

(e)   1993-1996 - Board of Directors, South Carolina Families for Kids - Appointment by Board of Directors."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Jenkins appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Jenkins appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Jenkins was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1976-79:   Engaged in the active practice of law as a Staff Attorney/Managing Attorney with Legal Services Agency headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina (NLAP, Inc.).

Provided direct legal assistance to indigent clients in the areas of Family Law (50%), State/Federal Housing Law (20%), State/Federal Public Benefit Laws (15%), and State/Federal Consumer Law involved in Claim & Delivery and Deficiency Suits (10)%). Other areas of service provided included the preparation of wills and deeds; power of attorneys for clients financial affairs. Yearly caseload exceeded 300 cases. In this position, I also coordinated the expansion of offices to Georgetown, Kingstree and Beaufort Counties.

In addition, coordinated the attorneys' weekly office schedule for client intake and served as the office liaison with the local courts. The office yearly caseload exceeded 5,000 cases;
1979-95:   Engaged in the active practice of law as an Attorney/Administrator titled: Director/General Counsel for Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. in Greenville South Carolina. Fifty percent of time was devoted to client practice in association with 13 staff attorneys in the areas of: Family Law Practice (50%), Federal Consumer Law (10%) and other legal services associated with the practice of Poverty Law. I was responsible for the legal services provided through offices located in Greenville, Anderson, and Greenwood, serving those areas and the adjoining counties of Edgefield, McCormick, Abbeville, Oconee and Pickens. The yearly total caseload exceeded 4,000 cases.

Served as legal counsel for numerous local community organizations whose missions are to improve the lives of people in poverty. Examples include: Greenville's Child, Inc., Save Our Sons, Neighborhoods In Action, The Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation, and Brockwood Senior Housing Corporation.

Served as an attorney member on the Kellogg Bar & Bench Sub-Committee of Judicial Administrative Policy, recommending Family Court Rule changes affecting disposition of cases where the State is involved in establishing permanent placement for Foster Care children (1993-on-going).

I was responsible for the hiring and training of all staff attorneys. I was responsible for public relations with the court system and the community. I served as liaison to the local state and national bar associations.

I was responsible for managing a yearly operating budget of over one million dollars and served as the general counsel for the corporation's financial affairs with state/federal government and other regulating bodies."

Judge Jenkins reported the frequency of his court appearances during the five years prior to serving on the bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:     Not Frequent;

(b)   State:       Frequent."

Judge Jenkins reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the five years prior to serving on the bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       65%;

(b)   Criminal:     0%;

(c)   Domestic:   35%."

Judge Jenkins reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the five years prior to serving on the bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       2%;

(b)   Non-jury:   98%."

Judge Jenkins provided that prior to the bench he served as solo counsel approximately 60% of the time and as co-counsel approximately 40% of the time.

The following is Judge Jenkins's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Fieldcrest Tenants Association, et al. v. Housing Authority of Greenville, U.S. District Ct., Greenville - 1980. This case involved the prosecution of Due Process rights of public housing tenants against irregular conduct and practices of public housing management in setting improper rent, improper assessments for maintenance repairs and causing wide spread evictions for improper reasons. Prosecuted as a class action, the matter was successfully resolved by court consent in favor of all families living in Greenville Public Housing. It resulted in better management practices which gave proper respect for the leasehold right of public tenants;

(b)   John Plumle, et al. v. School District of Greenville and State Board of Education, U.S. 4th Cir. (Unpublished 1982, #81-1894). This case was important because right to attorneys' fees by staff lawyers were permitted at reasonable levels where prosecution is successful under Section 1983 of the federal civil statute;

(c)   Greenville Housing Auth. v. Jessie Salters, 316 S.E. 2d. 718, 281.SC 608 (S.C. App. 1984). This case is important because it involved preventing a 64 year old lady who lived in public housing all her life from being made homeless by ejectment action of the housing authority based on circumstances beyond her control;

(d)   Jenkins, et. al. v. American Modern Homes, et al., 90-10-5549 (Cir. Ct. - Charleston County). This case involved seeking to enforce proper hazard insurance coverage for Hugo related damages against a claim of exclusion due to alleged flood damages. The issues were successfully resolved in clients favor after extensive discovery and trial preparation, thus preventing a homeless outcome for clients. (1990);

(e)   Hatchcock and Shuly v. Tammy McKensie, 94-CP-23-1336 (Cir. Ct.- Greenville) on Supersedeas to S.C. Supreme Court. This case involved the enforcement of clients right to continue possession of premises under the HUD Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program against improper ejectment proceeding brought by landlord. The client's mental condition complicated resolution of the issues (client is covered under the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). Case resolved favorable to interest of client. (1994)."

The following is Judge Jenkins's account of four civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Creel v. Miles, In re: Dianne Mary Miles, Supreme Court unpublished memorandum #79-179. This case involved an unsuccessful attempt to get practical compliance with the ten day hearing rule in cases where a minor has been taken into protective custody through DSS and law enforcement to protect rights of the parent;

(b)   Public Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 250 S.E.2d 926, 289 S.C. 153 (1979);

(c)   Greenville Housing Auth. v. Jessie Salters, 316 S.E. 2d. 718, 281 SC 608 (S.C. App. 1984). This case is important because it involved preventing a 65 year old lady who lived in public housing all her life from being made homeless by ejectment action of the housing authority based on circumstances beyond her control;

(d)   Hatchcock and Shuly v. Tammy McKensie, 94-CP-23-1336 (Cir. Ct.-Greenville) on Supersedeas to S.C. Supreme Court. This case involved the enforcement of clients' right to continue possession of premises under the HUD Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program against improper ejectment proceeding brought by landlord. The client's mental condition complicated resolution of the issues (client is covered under the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). Case resolved favorable to interest of client. (1994)."

Judge Jenkins reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Jenkins reported he has held the following public office:
"Family Court Judge Seat #5 in the Thirteenth (13th) Judicial Circuit
1996 - Present.

I am now serving as a Circuit Family Court Judge for the 13th Judicial Circuit.

My current term is through June 2008. This is a court of limited jurisdiction by statute covering marital litigation, juvenile cases, child dependency cases and all other domestic relations issues."

Judge Jenkins provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Rourk v. Rourk, 95-DR-95-08-1178 - Charleston.

T.P.R. (Private Action) (Termination of Parental Rights).

The decision disallows termination based on application of S.C. law;

(b)   Purdy v. Purdy, (578 S.E.2d. 30, 356 S.C. 400 (S.C. App. 2003) Beaufort.

This case involves the issue of whether the court erred in refusing to terminate the child support obligation of a father where the father claims that his daughter, although less than seventeen, was an emancipated child by other circumstances. The appeals court affirmed;

(c)   Greene v. Greene, 569 S.E.2d 393, 351 S.C. 329 Greenville.

This case involves the Court's treatment of equitable division of marital property in a divorce action. It also involved whether some of the property was non-marital. The appeals Court affirmed in part; modified in part; reversed and remanded in part;

(d)   SCDSS v. Evans, et al. - Greenville, 95-DR-23-5300, 97-DR-23-1073

T.P.R. (Public Action). (Termination of Parental Rights).

The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application;

(e)   SCDSS v. Sturkey, et al. - Greenville, 99-DR-23-258.

T.P.R. (Public Action).

(Termination of Parental Rights).

The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application.

S.C. Court of Appeals 4/22/99 - Opinion #99 - affirms.

See Attachment 23(e). UP-258."

Judge Jenkins reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a)   Candidate for Resident Seat #4 Circuit Court of Greenville, Qualified; not recommended - 2004;

(b)   Candidate for Seat #2, Circuit Court of Greenville, withdrew before election - 2000;

(c)   Candidate for Judicial Seat #3, Family Court, Greenville County (Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. - January 1992."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Jenkins's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Jenkins to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Jenkins "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Jenkins is married to Margaret Helen (Rivers) Jenkins. He has two children.

Judge Jenkins reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(c)   National Juvenile and Family Court Judges Association;

(d)   South Carolina Black Lawyers Association - member; served as its Treasurer 1976-1980;

(e)   Greenville Bar Association."

Judge Jenkins provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Allen Temple A.M.E. Church - Board of Trustees; Superintendent of Sunday School;

(b)   Association of Citadel Men - member;

(c)   Northwest (Travelers Rest) YMCA- Board member 1996 - 2002;

(d)   Goodwill Industries (Greenville) Board member 2000 - present;

(e)   Greenville Citadel Club - member."

The Commission noted Judge Jenkins' extensive public service through his work with Legal Services and now as a judge on the Family Court. They commented that Judge Jenkins is well-respected in the community he serves. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

J. Rene Josey
Court of Appeals, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Josey meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Mr. Josey was born in 1960. He is 46 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. Josey provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Josey.

Mr. Josey demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Josey reported that he has made $0.80 in campaign expenditures for postage.

Mr. Josey testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Josey testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Josey described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"4/26/02   Attorney Development Program (# 221106IH);
4/27/02   Preparing the Corporate Witness (# 220716IH);
5/17/02   Time Mastery for Lawyers (220759);
8/14/02   Today's Best Practices in Law (# 221980IH);
9/6/02     Federal Practice in the District (222011);
3/8/03     Ethics CLE (# 230637IH);
3/8/03     Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment (# 230773IH);
9/5/03     Federal Practice in the District (232375);
2/29/04   Ethics CLE (# 240770IH);
9/10/04   3rd Annual Federal Practice in (242519);
10/22/04   Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE (241357);
12/16/04   SEC "Hot Topics" (# 04);
1/7/05     Attorney ECF Training (251624);
1/21/05   Section of Litigation Environmental (250372);
1/26/06   Law Office Technology Committee (260221);
1/27/06   Fourth Annual Civil Law Update (260222);
1/27/06   Employment and Labor Law Section (260233);
1/28/06   Environmental and Natural Resources (260254);
2/24/06   Bringing the Voice of the Client into the Firm (260880IH);
2/25/06   Changes to South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (261005IH)."

Mr. Josey reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"In my private practice before government service, I was often a teacher at the Sentencing Guidelines training courses sponsored by the United States Probation Office for attorneys new to the federal system.

As United States Attorney, I was regularly asked to speak at the Annual Criminal Law Update held during the South Carolina Bar's Charleston convention (1/26/01, 1/21/00). I also have taught at the South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Convention (August 2000) and the South Carolina Solicitor's Conference. I helped organize and teach an Ethics CLE at Clemson's Homecoming in 1999 (10/2/99) at the Strom Thurmond Center ('Touchdown Ethics from Tigers on Both Sides of the Field').

In addition, I was a regular speaker at Narcotics training classes for law enforcement, Safe Schools training for teachers and law enforcement, and other training sponsored by the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee (LECC) of the United States Department of Justice. I was a speaker at DEA conferences, FBI retreats, and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy; much of this was teaching for non-lawyers.

Since joining the firm of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney in March of 2001, I have been directing the Attorney Development program for new associates. This initiative is somewhat broader than mere continuing legal education but involves development of all the skills newer lawyers need to acquire to become successful and productive practitioners. This includes time and personnel management training, team-building, and mentoring.

Within the past five years, I have spoken on Ethics at the Florence County Bar Association's Annual Ethics CLE (10/26/01) and the Federal Bar Association's CLE in conjunction with the South Carolina Bar (9/6/02)."

Mr. Josey reported that he has published the following:
"While I was in law school at the University of South Carolina, I published the following two articles in the South Carolina Law Review:
A.   An Analysis of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. -- Are Punitive Damages and Exclusive Federal Regulation Consistent? 36 S.C.L. Rev. 689 (1985).
B.   Annual Survey of South Carolina Law (Labor and Employment Section), 36 S.C.L. Rev. 179 (1984).

Employment Discrimination and Title VII: Appropriate Conceptual

Frameworks for Different Claims.

Fetal Vulnerability Plan: Disparate Treatment Absent Intent.

Title VII and The Sexually Offensive Work Environment:

A Warranty of Workability.

Wildcat Strikes and Local Union Liability.

The United States Attorney's office published a quarterly (or so) newsletter primarily for law enforcement agencies and I contributed articles to that publication (part inspirational and part educational)."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Josey did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Josey did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Josey has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Josey was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Josey reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."

Mr. Josey reported he has held the following public office:
"From May 1996 through February 2001 I served as the United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina. I was appointed by the President and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. Because this was a federal office, I filed federal ethics reports; as I recall, these were all filed in a timely manner and no penalties imposed.

In March of 2001, I was appointed by Florence City Council to serve as a commissioner on the Florence Civic Center Commission - the governing body for the regional auditorium/arena located in Florence. I still serve on that commission and was elected chairman by my fellow commissioners in July of 2002. Our commissioners do not serve as the chief administrative officer of this commission; this function is filled by an independent contractor. See S.C. Code Section 8-13-1110(B)(6) (requiring such chief administrative officer to file Economic Interest Report with State Ethics Commission)."
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Josey appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Josey appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Josey was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"From August of 1985 through August of 1987, I was a law clerk to the Honorable C. Weston Houck, United States District Court Judge for the District of South Carolina.

Following my clerkship, my wife and I chose to remain in our new home of Florence and I joined the firm of Rogers & McBratney as an associate. I worked as an associate with the firm from August of 1987 through March of 1991. I became a partner in the firm in April of 1991 and the firm name was changed to Rogers, McBratney, & Josey. I remained with this firm through December of 1993 when I left to start my own solo practice. Throughout my years of practice with these attorneys, I was engaged in the general practice of law with an emphasis on litigation.

I was in the solo practice of law at 401 W. Cheves Street, Florence, SC, from 1 January 1994 to 17 May 1996. The nature of my practice was very much as it had been before - general litigation matters of many varieties. It was at this point, however, that I also began my service as a mediator. While my practice had always had a federal criminal defense component, it was at its peak at this point. My office location was very close to the federal courthouse and I was a frequent choice of the United States Magistrate for appointments since it facilitated timely hearings - particularly before the Federal Public Defender opened a full-time office in Florence.

In February 1996, I was recommended by United States Senator Ernest F. Hollings to be the United States Attorney for South Carolina. Following the vetting process, I was formally nominated by the President. Pending confirmation by the United States Senate, I was appointed by the United States Attorney General and United States District Court as an interim United States Attorney on 17 May 1996 and I closed my private practice. On the motion of Senator Strom Thurmond, my nomination was forwarded out of the Judiciary Committee in weeks and I was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate just before their Memorial Day recess."

Mr. Josey further reported:

"My work as United States Attorney was again focused on diverse litigation - both civil and criminal, and both as civil plaintiff and civil defendant. While much of my time and effort was spent leading and managing the office effort as a whole across the district. I intentionally sought opportunities to participate directly in grand jury and courtroom work -- both to enhance my leadership with the office and to personally learn from many skilled Assistant United States Attorneys. During my service I also spent considerable time working on communication and coordination with local law enforcement and local prosecutors whom I grew to respect very much.

At the conclusion of my term as United States Attorney, I resigned (24 February 2001) to aide the transition for the new administration. I chose to join the law firm of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney working primarily from its Florence office. I began my work with the firm in March of 2001. While I work on the business and commercial litigation team, my practice has again become quite diverse including both criminal and civil matters. The civil matters have included both tort actions and contract actions. I have worked for both plaintiffs and defendants. I have worked on both state criminal matters in several circuits and federal criminal matters."

Mr. Josey reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   Probably an average of once a month;

(b)   State:     Probably an average of twice a month."

Mr. Josey reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       65%;

(b)   Criminal:     30%;

(c)   Domestic:   5%."

Mr. Josey reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       65%;

(b)   Non-jury:   35%."

Mr. Josey provided that he most often served "about equally in each role [as sole and co-counsel] over the past 5 years."

The following is Mr. Josey's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Evans v. Country Squire Mobile Homes (Appellate No. 89-719).

This essentially involved a breach of warranty in the sale of a mobile home. I represented the purchasers of the mobile home. The case was significant because the jury apparently awarded damages under the Uniform Commercial Code for the intangible elements of emotional distress and mental anguish. The matter was appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the verdict was affirmed. It also was significant because I believe it was my first solo trial in Circuit Court and I believe it was Judge Kinnon's final trial in Circuit Court before his retirement;

(b)   United States v. Theodore McFarlin (Case No. 4:97-736).

This case is significant because it represented the first successful prosecution of this former Sheriff of Williamsburg County; to me, his conviction symbolized a purification of a corrupt segment or link in the criminal justice chain and thereby helped restore public confidence in the system. I tried this case as United States Attorney with Assistant United States Attorney Scarlett A. Wilson (now Assistant Solicitor). McFarlin was convicted of all counts including drug conspiracy and perjury. McFarlin was ably defended by I.S. Levy Johnson, Esq.;

(c)   United States v. Jennifer Rose (Case No. 4:93-56).

I represented the defendant, Jennifer Rose, who was charged along with the other occupants of a motor vehicle with violation of the federal narcotics laws. All of the vehicle's occupants were natives of Jamaica.

The case was significant because I was able to convince the District Court to direct a verdict of acquittal for Ms. Rose on the basis that the government had failed to provide sufficient proof that she was aware of the presence of illegal narcotics in the automobile. The matter was tried before the Honorable Henry C. Morgan, United States District Judge (visiting the District of South Carolina);

(d)   United States v. James Coury Holmes and Marcus Mandel Ellis (6:00-107).

This was a multiple armed bank robbery trial in Greenville before United States District Judge Henry Herlong. I tried it with Assistant United States Attorney Jeanne Howard. This case is significant to me primarily because it represents the most fun I have ever had in trial. The defendants had committed a string of unsolved car thefts followed by masked armed robberies with assault rifles. The victims were most appreciative and cooperative. Local law enforcement had done a good job of finally cracking the case. The FBI had secured a great deal of circumstantial evidence as well as provided several excellent expert witnesses (dye stain chemist and photogrammetry analyst). The trial went smoothly (as I recall, some 50 witnesses in about 3 days) and resulted in convictions. The subsequent appeals were successfully handled by Ms. Howard;

(e)   United States v. Bill Prince and Don Prince.

I participated with two other prosecutors in this trial against the Prince brothers for their conspiracy to hire a hit man to assassinate the key trial witness in an earlier criminal matter against brother Bill Prince. The proof against Bill Prince was largely circumstantial and dependent upon the introduction of the entire historical context of Bill Prince's earlier conviction. It was my first trial as a prosecutor. The defendants were ably defended by Jack Swerling, Esq. and Jack Lawson, Esq."

The following is Mr. Josey's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Trayco, Inc. v. United States (Case No. 4:89-361) (1991 W.L. 516834 (D.S.C.)).

This was an importer's action in United States District Court to recover a customs penalty assessed on an inaccurate factual basis. This case is significant because it apparently represents the first time an importer has successfully invoked the jurisdiction of a District Court to obtain judicial review of a customs penalty. I represented the importer, Trayco, Inc. This matter was tried before the Honorable C. Weston Houck, United States District Judge, and subsequently heard by both the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (published opinions at 962 F.2d 97(1992)) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (published opinion at 994 F.2d 832 (1993));

(b)   Shores v. Pennsylvania Mutual Insurance Company (Case No. 90-CP-21-1597).

This case involved the interpretation of South Carolina's mandatory automobile insurance law. It is significant because it represents the first time that an appellate court of this state held that the mandatory minimum liability insurance could not be defeated by the failure of an at-fault motorist to give notice to the insurance carrier. I represented Linda Shores as the personal representative of her brother's estate.

This matter was tried in the Florence County Court of Common Pleas before the Honorable C. Victor Rawl, Circuit Judge. The matter was subsequently heard by both the South Carolina Court of Appeals (published opinion at Shores v. Weaver, 315 S.C. 347, 433 S.E.2d 913 (1993));

(c)   Crosby v. Crosby (Case No. 93-DR-21-2126).

This was a child custody matter. I represented the father, Dr. Charles E. Crosby. The case served as an important demonstration to me of the duration and difficulty of heart-felt custody battles. The case was also significant because the South Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's first decision awarding custody to the mother and ordered a re-trial (unpublished opinion 95-UP-050). The matter was subsequently re-tried after I left to serve as United States Attorney;

(d)   Drew v. United States, 217 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2000), vacated en banc and district court affirmed, 231 F. 3d 927 (2000).

I did not write the brief in this matter, but I presented the oral arguments for the United States both before the initial three judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently before the entire court sitting en banc. This has been my only opportunity to present an en banc argument to the court. The issue involved the ability of a tort claimant to alter their initial theory of the case after having exhausted administrative remedies with a different theory of the case; the District Court's dismissal of the altered claim for lack of exhaustion was reversed by the panel, 2-1, and then affirmed by the court en banc, 5-5 (ties defer to the trial court). The closeness of the decision also corresponds to the closeness of the issue itself which made it somewhat difficult to advocate; essentially, the question was: how much claim alteration is too much?;

(e)   David v. McLeod Regional Medical Center (Case No. 01-CP-21-334).

This was a medical malpractice claim. I represented the hospital. The case involved issues of agency for a hospital-based pathologist. I had handled the matter from successful summary judgment hearing in the trial court through successful appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court;

(f)   Myrtle Beach Shrine Club v. Horry Shrine Club, (Case No. 03-CP-26-744).

This case represented a most unfortunate dispute between various fraternal organizations. It is my most recent appeal - decided May 8, 2006 (unpublished Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-20). While my representation was unsuccessful in both the trial court and appeal, my clients remained very satisfied with my efforts and I feel the brief was well done;

(g)   Howard v. Cox, (Case No. 02-CP-21-1611).

This is another case handled solely from beginning to end without success in either the trial court or the appellate court (unpublished opinion no. 2005-UP-533). Again, I felt the brief was simple but well-done and the client remained very satisfied with my efforts despite a lack of success."

The following is Mr. Josey's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   United States v. Henry Monroe Rayford, a/k/a Junebug (District Case No. 4:92-216, Appellate No. 93-5423).

This was a federal criminal prosecution involving a conspiracy to possess drugs with an attempt to distribute as well as allegations of money laundering. The case is significant because the money laundering conviction was reversed (unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, February 7, 1995) based upon the trial court's erroneous omission of evidence. I represented the defendant Rayford (there were multiple defendants with differing appellate issues, but one composite brief was submitted);

(b)   United States v. Benjamin Harden, et.al. (Appeal Record No. 97 - 4791).

This was an unsuccessful appeal from the trial court's dismissal of the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. As United States Attorney, I began personal work on this matter following the trial court's dismissal. I prepared the brief with assistance from Assistant United States Attorney Scarlett A. Wilson (now Assistant Solicitor) (she signed the final brief) and I argued the matter before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals;

(c)   State v. Michael White.

This is a felony DUI matter. It is the only criminal appeal that I recall handling in the state system. I was not trial counsel and the matter arises more in the form of a post-conviction jurisdictional challenge. Because of the unusual procedural position of the matter (post-conviction motion for sentence reconsideration), my appellate brief was never filed in this matter; nevertheless, it was prepared in draft form and has been presented to the Assistant Solicitor. Interestingly, while the Brief is entirely my composition, some of the preliminary research was done by Mr. White in prison and I have followed up on his insightful work. As a result of this briefing and negotiations, a new plea agreement was reached, involving the victim, and a reduced sentence imposed. Mr. White is now a rare success story (employed, continuing his education) following his incarceration;

(d)   United States of America v. Danny Myers (No. 4:90-430, Appellate No. 91-5562).

I represented the defendant, Danny Myers, pursuant to an appointment under the Criminal Justice Act. The defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs, possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs, and a firearm violation. After tendering a plea to the firearm count, the defendant stood for trial on the narcotics charges. The case is significant because it represents the first trial of mine in which the defendant was prosecuted with 'historical' evidence only. The matter was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the conviction was affirmed (unpublished opinion). The defendant's petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied;

(e)   United States v. Rigney (Appeal No. 89-5617).

This was a drug conspiracy case and my first criminal trial. I was appointed to represent the defendant William O. Rigney who was a decorated Navy Veteran with no criminal record. There was limited direct physical evidence of his involvement but significant circumstantial evidence and direct testimony of co-conspirators. One of these witnesses made reference to the polygraph during her examination and this became the issue of the subsequent appeal. This was also my first criminal appeal."

Mr. Josey reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"I unsuccessfully ran for Florence County Council in 1994. In the Fall of 2002, I was a candidate for Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat #9, and was found qualified, but not nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Committee."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Josey's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Josey to be "very qualified for the position of Court of Appeals Judge." The Committee described Mr. Josey as "studious, analytical, and very personable."

Mr. Josey is married to Martha Willis Josey. He has two children.

Mr. Josey reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Federal Bar Association, South Carolina Chapter:

President, September 2006 to present;

President Elect 9/05 to 9/06;

Treasurer 9/04 to 9/05;

Board of Directors Member 2001 to present.

(b)   Florence Bar Association:

President-Elect 2006;

Secretary 2005;

Treasurer 2004;

Treasurer 1989-1990.

(c)   South Carolina Bar Association.

(d)   National Association of Former United States Attorneys."

Mr. Josey provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Commissioner, Florence Civic Center appointed March 2001, elected Chairperson, July 2002;

(b)   Director, Montessori School of Florence appointed 2001, elected Vice-Chair, 2002, assumed Chair 2005;

(c)   Director, Lighthouse Ministries of Florence, 2002-2004;

(d)   Central United Methodist Church, Stewardship Committee 2002, Administrative Board 2003 to present, State Conference Delegate 2005-2007;

(e)   Director, South Carolina Centers for Equal Justice 2002 - 2005;

(f)   Director, Florence Center for the Arts, 2002;

(g)   Team Manager, Florence Fire Boys Soccer Team 2002 - 2003."

Mr. Josey additionally provided:

"As part of my screening for service as United States Attorney, I underwent an extensive FBI background investigation. As a result of that investigation, I was cleared for service and given a top secret security clearance with the United States. Although those credentials have expired, the review process that supported them is of relevance to public service as a state judge as well.

I also have training as a certified Mediator and Arbitrator for civil court. Florence County was one of the initial pilot counties for a mandatory ADR program and I received the necessary training early in the program's development. I formerly served on the Florence County list of mediators who could be appointed. I conducted many mediation sessions in the 1994-1996 period. As United States Attorney, I encouraged our office use of ADR and personally participated with Assistant United States Attorneys in several important mediation sessions. I now serve on the federally certified list of available mediators. I am a proponent of the frequent benefits of ADR."

The Commission noted Mr. Josey's public service as the former U.S. Attorney for this state as well as his active involvement in his area's civic organizations. They commented that he was well-respected by the local bar. The Commission found Mr. Josey qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Aphrodite Konduros
Court of Appeals, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Konduros meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Konduros was born in 1959. She is 47 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Konduros provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Konduros.

Judge Konduros demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Konduros reported that she has made $50.00 in campaign expenditures for a ream of paper and a roll of stamps.

Judge Konduros testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Konduros testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Konduros to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Konduros described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   2002

7/8/02       Orientation School for New Judges;

8/1/02       Annual SCTLA Convention;

8/22/02     Annual Judges Conference-Family Law;

(b)   2003

1/23/03     SC BAR-Family Law Division;

4/11/03     SCLWA Conference;

4/30/03     Family Court Judges Conference;

8/21/03     Annual Judges Conference;

8/7/03       Annual SCTLA Conference-Family Law;

(c)   2004

1/23/04     SC BAR-Family Law Division;

4/28/04     Family Court Judges Conference;

8/19/04     Judicial Conference;

8/19/04     Judicial Oath of Office;

12/10/04     Seminar for Chief Administrative Judges;

(d)   2005

1/21/05     SC Bar Family Law Section;

1/22/05     SC BAR- Torts and Insurance Practice;

4/27/05     Family Court Judges Conference;

8/24/05     Annual Judicial Conference;

12/02/05     SC Family Court Bench/Bar;

(e)   2006

1/27/06     ADR, Children's Law, Family Law Section;

4/26/06     Family Court Judges Conference;

8/22/06     Annual Judicial Conference and Mini-Summit on Children;

8/23/06     Annual Judges Conference."

Judge Konduros reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   SCTLA 2003-spoke on Ethical considerations in Family Court for an absent speaker;

(b)   Family Law Lawyers Annual Conference 2002 - spoke on Elder Law issues to fellow judges;

(c)   Numerous Omnibus Adult Protection Act presentations at the Criminal Justice Academy;

(d)   DSS-sponsored CLE seminars on Termination of Parental Rights, Adult Abuse issues and Adoptions;

(e)   Abuse and Neglect trainings to Greenville School District teachers;

(f)   'Grand Rounds' training to interns at Greenville Hospital on recognizing abuse;

(g)   Annual training to Greenville Chamber young members on the court system and moderating law enforcement panel;

(h)   Annual training to 'Leadership Greenville' on recognizing abuse;

(i)   Training to 'Fatherhood Program' on the logic of Child Support;

(j)   Summer School on Gerontology, Winthrop University;

(k)   Various judicial panels at the SC BAR Family Law section;

(l)   Panelist on the Chief Justice's Mini-Summit on Children, August, 2006."

Judge Konduros reported that she has published the following:
"Chief of the Catawbas", Sandlapper Magazine, Summer Issue, 1999. (4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Konduros did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Konduros did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Konduros has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Konduros was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Konduros reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Konduros appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Konduros appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Konduros was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1984-85   Weinberg, Brown & McDougall Sumter, SC.

General practice, civil, criminal defense, appellate practice, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals;
1985-1987   Law Clerk to the Hon. David F. McInnis, Circuit Court, Third Circuit.

Accompanied the judge to 33 counties in our state, assisting him in civil and criminal court;

Todd & Barber Columbia, SC.

General practice including residential and commercial real estate and development, domestic, probate, appellate practice, criminal, civil, outdoor advertising licensure, and collection;

SC Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, Deputy   General Counsel, Columbia, SC.

Practice included family court juvenile hearings, unemployment hearings, workers compensation, civil, criminal, probate commitments, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits practice;

SC Department of Social Services Greenville, SC.

County attorney for DSS prosecution of abuse and neglect cases, child support, unemployment, appellate practice, and probate;
1/97-12/97   The Code Law Firm Greenville, SC.

Private practice including divorce, child support, DSS, DJJ, civil defense in state and federal court, Insurance Reserve Fund defense for the SCDOT, Department of Education, DSS, DDSN, City of Greenville, Greer Police Department, Department of Corrections, Magistrate's Court, appellate practice;
SC Department of Social Services, Assistant General Counsel, Columbia, SC.

Adoptions, DSS prosecution, appellate practice, state procurement, day care licensure appeals, state employee grievances;
2000- 2002     Director, Greenville Department of Services, Greenville, SC.

Managed 314 state employees and multi-million dollar budget, administering Medicaid, food stamps, child and adult protective services, foster care licensing, and over 400 foster children. Supervised five lawyers handling child abuse and neglect cases, adoptions, termination of parental rights cases. Continued to handle a small number of DSS cases, unemployment hearings personally;
2002- Present     Family Court Judge, Thirteenth Circuit, Seat #3."

Judge Konduros reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   rare, maybe 3 times;

(b)   State:     predominantly family court, with a fair percentage of circuit court and appellate appearances."

Judge Konduros reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       6%;

(b)   Criminal:     4%;

(c)   Domestic:   90%."

Judge Konduros reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       5%;

(b)   Non-jury:   95%."

Judge Konduros provided prior to election to the bench she served "mostly sole, sometimes chief" counsel.

The following is Judge Konduros's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   SCDSS v. Elizabeth Rochelle Maddox, et al- Family Court termination of parental rights to remaining siblings of murdered child. Mother and father had been criminally convicted for the child's death and the case raised the question of whether the termination case was premature as the parents' appeals had not yet been exhausted;

(b)   SCDSS v. Walker, Thompson, et al- complicated abuse and neglect custody case where father of all the children and both mothers were all individuals with mental retardation. Each litigant had a guardian and a lawyer, and the case had to be tried carefully to make sure litigants were afforded a meaningful trial;

(c)   SCDSS v. Partridge, Harris, et al- sex abuse case with a middle class family where the father, mother, mother's boyfriend, and the maternal grandparents were all suspects. The children were too young to testify. The father was awarded custody and grandparents were barred from ever having any contact with the children through any method. Case was not appealed, but grandparents filed numerous motions and actions to have it reopened. Case was the first in Greenville to litigate grandparents' rights. (NOTE-grandparents were not held responsible for sex abuse);

(d)   SCDSS v. Plunkett, et al- contested four-day termination of parental rights and adoption case between the natural parents, who are full siblings, and their mother versus the foster parent. The parents relinquished their parental rights and then changed their minds forcing a two-day trial on voluntariness of their relinquishments. Following a finding that the relinquishments were voluntary, the adoption was contested between the grandmother and foster mother. Case stands for the proposition that the natural family members have no automatic preference when it comes to adoption;

(e)   Hooper v. Rockwell, SCDSS et al- 334 SC 281, 513 SE2d 358 (1999) - mother appealed termination of her parental rights, which the Court upheld. The case stands for the current law in South Carolina on what matters are interlocutory and what matters are final and ripe for appeal."

The following is Judge Konduros's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Charping v. J.P. Scurry Company, Inc., 296 SC 312; 372 SE 2d 120 (Ct. App. 1988);

(b)   SCDSS v. Beeks, et al., 325 SC 243, 481 SE 2d 703 (S.Ct. 1997);

(c)   Hooper v. Rockwell, et al., 334 SC 281, 513 SE 2d 358 (S.Ct.1999)."

The following is Judge Konduros's account of criminal appeals she has personally handled:

"I have handled no criminal appeals as a litigant's attorney. However, I sat as an Associate Justice on the SC Supreme Court on State v. Luke Traylor, 360 SC 74; 600 SE2d 523 (S.Ct. 2004)."

Judge Konduros reported that she has held the following judicial office:

"Currently a family court judge in the Thirteenth Circuit, Elected February 6, 2002, and February 4, 2004, to expire June 30, 2010. Jurisdiction is set forth in SC Code Section 20-7-420, et seq."

Judge Konduros provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Rogers v. Rogers, Court of Appeals Opinion #2006-UP-114 affirmed, unpublished;

(b)   Castellani v. Chaudhury;

(c)   Brown v. Brown;

(d)   Lacovelli v. Lacovelli;

(e)   Herlong v. Herlong."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Konduros' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Konduros to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Konduros "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Konduros is married to Samuel James Konduros. She has no children.

Judge Konduros reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   SCWLA - Regional liaison in the late 90's for one year;

(b)   Greenville County Bar;

(c)   South Carolina Bar."

Judge Konduros provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Board member, Prevent Child Abuse Carolina;

(b)   Board member, Safe Harbor Women's Shelter;

(c)   Board member, Greenville Ballet;

(d)   Board member, Greenville First Steps;

(e)   Executive Director, Pendleton Place Children's Shelter;

(f)   Member, Governor's Juvenile Justice Task Force, 13th Circuit;

(g)   Member, Greenville County Substance Abuse Council;

(h)   Member, Greenville Area Directors of Social Health Associations (GADSHA);

(i)     Member, Greenville Pediatric HIV Advisory Board."

Judge Konduros additionally provided:

"Co-recipient of the Claude N. Sapp Award for Outstanding Law Graduate (with David Dukes, Esq. of Columbia). Served as a Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court on June 22, 2004."

The Commission was impressed with Judge Konduros' reputation as a real leader on the Family Court bench. They commented on her great judicial temperament. The Commission found Judge Konduros qualified for election to the Court of Appeals.

Paula H. Thomas
Court of Appeals, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Thomas meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Thomas was born in 1957. She is 49 years old and a resident of Pawleys Island, South Carolina. Judge Thomas provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Thomas. Judge Thomas demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Thomas reported that she has made under $50 in campaign expenditures for postage.

Judge Thomas testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Thomas testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Thomas to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Thomas described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Criminal Law Update     01/26/2001;

(b)   SC Circuit Court Judges     05/09/2001;

(c)   Judicial Conference     08/23/2001;

(d)   Criminal Law Update     01/25/2002;

(e)   Criminal Law Update     01/24/2003;

(f)     SC Circuit Court Judges     05/07/2003;

(g)   2003 Annual SCTLA Convention   08/07/2003;

(h)   Judicial Conference     08/21/2003;

(i)     2nd Annual Civil Law Update     01/23/2004;

(j)     19th Annual Criminal Law Update     01/23/2004;

(k)   2004 SC Circuit Court Judges     05/05/2004;

(l)     Judicial Conference     08/19/2004;

(m)   Judicial Oath of Office   08/19/2004;

(n)   Seminar for Chief Judges   12/10/2004;

(o)   20th Annual Criminal Law Update   01/21/2005;

(p)   2005 Circuit Court Judges   05/12/2005;

(q)   2005 Annual Judicial Conference   08/24/2005;

(r)     21st Annual Criminal Law Update   01/27/2006;

(s)   Fourth Annual Civil Law Update   01/27/2006;

(t)     2006 Annual Judicial Conference   08/23/2006;

(u)   National Judicial College   11/13-16/2006."

Judge Thomas reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   August 6, 1993 - 'Restructured State Government & The State of Administrative Law' - Speaker;

(b)   April 26, 1996 - 'So You Want To Be A Judge' - Women In Law, Columbia, SC- Speaker."

Judge Thomas reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Thomas did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Thomas did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Thomas has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Thomas was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Thomas reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Thomas reported that she has held the following public office:
"Elected to SC House Seat 108 - Served 1993-1996."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Thomas appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Thomas appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Thomas was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   Jan 1987 - Sept 1987 - Law Offices of Kenneth W. Thornton, Georgetown, SC - Associate working in family and circuit court matters;

(b)   Sept 1987 - Aug 1988 - Rubillo & Thomas, Georgetown, SC - Partner/ family and circuit court matter;

(c)   Aug 1988 - Jan 1993 - Law Office of Paula H. Thomas, Pawleys Island, SC - Sole Practitioner working in family and circuit court matters;

(d)   Jan 1993 - Jan 1994 - Thomas & Gundling, Pawleys Island, SC - Partner working in family and circuit court matters;

(e)   Jan 1994 - May 1994 - Lawrimore, Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher - Pawleys Island, SC - Partner working in family and circuit court matter;

(f)   May 1994 - Jan 1995 - Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher - Pawleys Island, SC - Partner working in family and circuit court matters;

(g)   Jan 1995 - July 1996 - Law Office of Paula H. Thomas, Pawleys Island, SC - Sole Practitioner, family and circuit court matters."

Judge Thomas reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   appeared twice;

(b)   state:     appeared in family court an average of once per week, appeared in circuit court and average of once per month."

Judge Thomas reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:       45%;

(b)   criminal:     15%;

(c)   domestic:     40%."

Judge Thomas reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:         2%;

(b)   non-jury:     98%."

Judge Thomas provided that prior to election to the bench she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Thomas' account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Harry F. Cameron v. Georgetown Steel - Workers Compensation Claim regarding novel question dealing with the 'coming and going' rule. Case# WWC9357660;

(b)   Paula Wilson, et. al. v. Patricia Brown, a/k/a Patricia Brown Nance - Issue of whether a deceased individual was competent at the time of marriage and the Children's standing to sue. Case # 95-DR-22-156;

(c)   State of South Carolina v. Marshall Beam - First case in the 15th Circuit in which and individual was charged under the Criminal Negligence statue in South Carolina. Case # 93-GS-26-2153;

(d)   State v. Robert Prince - Addressed numerous search and seizure issues. Case # 87-GS-22-;

(e)   Swails v. Revco - Establishing damages for administering wrong medication. Case # 95-CP-22-260."

The following is Judge Thomas' account of the civil appeal she has personally handled:
"Myra Jean Merritt v. Carl A. Merrit, Jr. - Docket 3-95-610 (Co-Counsel)."

Judge Thomas reported she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Thomas reported she has held the following judicial offices:

"(a)   Elected May 22, 1996, SC Circuit Court, At-Large Seat #1 (un-expired   term);

(b)   Re-Elected in May of 1997;

(c)   Elected May 1998, SC Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

(d)   Re-elected April 2003."

The following is Judge Thomas' account of her most significant orders:

"(a)   Horton v. Darby Electric - Opinion # 25839 - Supreme Court Opinion;

(b)   Farm Bureau v. Chandler - 95-CP-45-142 - SC Appeals Court & Supreme Court rulings;

(c)   State v. Vazquez - Opinion # 25975 Death Penalty Case - Supreme Court Opinion;

(d)   Cole v. Frie - Unpublished Opinion No. 202-UP-472;

(e)   GB&S Corp. v. County of Florence - Unpublished Opinion 2005-UP - 171 Court of Appeals."

Judge Thomas further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"Candidate for Court of Appeals Seat #1 in 2004."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Thomas' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Thomas to be "a very well qualified candidate for the Court of Appeals." They noted that "she is an extremely capable Circuit Court Judge with wonderful qualifications, demeanor and presentation."

Judge Thomas is married to Don Stanley Thomas. She has three children.

Judge Thomas reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   SC Bar Association;

(b)   SC Circuit Judges Association."

Judge Thomas provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Cities of Character, Georgetown, SC Advisory Board Member;

(b)   St. Paul's Waccamaw UMC."

Judge Thomas additionally provided:

"(a)   Sat as an Acting Associate Justice on the SC Supreme Court;

(b)   Sat as an Acting Judge of the Court of Appeals;

(c)   My 10 years of experience as a Circuit Court Judge;

(d)   My experience as a Legislator."

The Commission noted that Judge Thomas' outstanding grasp of legal issues was demonstrated by her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure test, which would serve her well on the Court of Appeals. They also commented on her able service on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for election to the Court of Appeals.

J. Ernest Kinard, Jr.
Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kinard meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Kinard was born in 1939. He is 67 years old and a resident of Camden, South Carolina. Judge Kinard provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1964.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kinard.

Judge Kinard demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Kinard reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Kinard testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Kinard testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Kinard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Kinard described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   1/26/01   Criminal Law Update;

(b)   3/22/01   The Art of Argument;

(c)   4/21/01   Economic Institute for State Judges;

(d)   5/9/01   SC Circuit Court Judges Conference;

(e)   8/4-12/01   Economic Institute for State Judges;

(f)   8/23/01   State Judicial Conference;

(g)   10/5/01   Lexis-Nexis Training;

(h)   1/25/02   17th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(i)     3/21/02   Post 9/11 Legal Issues;

(j)     5/8/02     SC Circuit Court Judges Conference;

(k)   8/1/02     2002 Annual Trial Lawyers Convention;

(l)     8/22/02   State Judicial Conference;

(m)   11/17/02   Search, Seizure and Criminal;

(n)   1/24/03   18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(o)   1/24/03   1st Annual Civil law Update;

(p)   1/25/03   Consumer Law Section Meeting;

(q)   1/28/03   Legal Jeopardy;

(r)   5/7/03     SC Circuit Court Judges Conference;

(s)   8/7/03     2003 Annual Trial Lawyers Convention;

(t)     8/21/03   State Judicial Conference;

(u)   9/28/03   2003 Solicitor's Association;

(v)   11/03     SC Defense Trial Lawyers Convention;

(w)   1/23/04   19th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(x)   1/23/04   2nd Annual Civil Law Update;

(y)   1/24/04   Torts & Insurance Practices;

(z)   2/9/04     When Justice Fails;

(aa)   5/5/04     SC Circuit Court Judges Conference;

(bb)   8/19/04   State Judicial Conference;

(cc)   8/19/04   Judicial Oath of Office;

(dd)   8/21/04   The Judge as Fact Finder;

(ee)   10/26/04   Effective Mediation Strategies;

(ff)   12/10/04   Seminar for Chief Judges;

(gg)   1/26/05   Construction Defects;

(hh)   2/22/05   Tort Reform or Torts Deformed;

(ii)   4/7/05     Science in the Courts;

(jj)   5/11/05   SC Circuit Court Judges Conference;

(kk)   5/12/05   SC Circuit Court Judges Conference;

(ll)   8/24/05   State Judicial Conference;

(mm)   9/20/05 South Carolina Legal History;

(nn)   10/25/05   Application of Tort Reform;

(oo)   10/26-30/05 Environmental Economics for State Officials;

(pp)   11/3/05   SC Defense Trial Lawyers Convention;

(qq)   1/15/05   Highlights of the 2005 Revision to ...."

Judge Kinard reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"Group Facilitator several times at the National Judicial College including two weeks of General Jurisdiction in April of this year, and have been a presenter at numerous JCLE's including Tips from the Bench in December of 2005. Prepared materials and presided over the School for Chief Judges in December, 2004."

Judge Kinard reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   Published Trial and Appellate Advocacy for 1989 CLE;

(b)   Published Workplace Defamation and other Ancillary causes of action in employment claims in 1992;

(c)   Published JCLE material jointly with Mike Tighe - Default Matters - 1991;

(d)   Published South Carolina Damages - 2004;

(e)   Prepared Task Force Report for Chief Justice on Circuit Court Function in 2004;

(f)   Prepared Materials for Tips from the Bench in 2005."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Kinard did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kinard did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kinard has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Kinard was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Kinard reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Kinard reported he has held the following public offices:

"I was President of the Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce in 1983; Elected by the members as President of the Camden Country Club, 2 years from 1981/1982-1982/1983; Elected Vice-Chairman of Wateree Community Actions 1969 to 1972 by the membership, appointed to the Board by the Kershaw County Council, elected Vice-Chairman by the members; Appointed by City Council to serve on the Board of the Kershaw county Commission on Drug Abuse from 1970 until 1975."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Kinard appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Kinard appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Kinard was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1964.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"While in law school I clerked for the old McKay Firm performing general duties as well as research and rendering trial preparation assistance and was permitted to sit with the late Gus Black, Eli Walker and the McKays, Doug Jr. and Jay, during various trials. Upon graduation from law school in January of 1964, I moved to Camden and clerked for Henry Savage, Jr. and Ed Royall until admission to the Bar in April of 1964 when I became an associate.

Henry Savage was a business attorney and tried with my assistance in mid-1964 his only circuit court case in my 24 years with the law firm, in which he successfully caused the reassessment I assisted in drafting.

The firm was strictly a defense firm when I arrived. Ed Royall generally preferred to handle non-circuit matters; so since I appeared at ease with motions, pleadings and procedure within the court system, most of the litigation was turned over to me, although Ed obviously assisted me where our exposure was great or his experience needed. Domestic cases and equity matters were quickly added to my slot, along with City Court appearances and a few Worker's Compensation hearings. By 1965, when I was made a partner, we had picked up several new carriers as clients and also expanded our representation in commercial litigations, with the addition of several finance companies to our clientele. Several utilities and roads have crossed portions of Kershaw county during my practice years and I have participated in or handled such cases. Over the years, I have appeared in Social Security Disability, Unemployment Security Commission and zoning type matters as well as appearing in Coroner's inquests.

In trials, my representation of Defendants in personal injury litigation exceeded that of Plaintiffs, but we had fair success representing Plaintiffs' and the firm has had at least one settlement exceeding $100,000.00 per year, fortunately, for the last several years that I practiced with the firm.
As managing partner in charge of personnel and procedure from 1968 until my departure in May of 1988, delegating and assigning various cases and functions to firm members was my responsibility. We added Bob Sheheen in 1968, Bill Byars in 1972, Moultrie Burns in 1974, Doug Robinson in 1979, Dana Morris in 1983 and John Rabb in 1987. I generally trained Bob, Bill, Doug, Dana and John in trial procedure and tried jury cases with each of them.

On the criminal side, in my early years the firm did not handle criminal matters, but I was immediately court appointed on many cases, which exposure led to my acquiring several fee producing criminal cases and through the years I had been involved in the defense of virtually all crimes from hunting violations in Magistrate's Court through several murder trials in Circuit Court and trial defense of a bank president on embezzlement charges in Federal Court. However, I did prefer civil practice, so I generally ceased handling criminal cases in 1975 as Bob Sheheen and Bill Byars of my former law firm handled those cases and I would not generally participate unless some special circumstance required my input.

The firm handled numerous real estate matters over which I generally supervised the closing, including many commercial projects such as apartment projects, shopping centers, with many realtors and builders as clients, numerous contract and commission controversies I personally handled through litigation. Generally, small estates were handled by other firm members, but I handled a few large estates and prepared estate tax returns for the firm.

Over the years, routine foreclosures, collections suits and claim and delivery actions became my responsibility, which functions I handled as one of my secretaries was quite competent in setting these actions up and following through with minimum attorney input.

Prior to 1979, I filed a few bankruptcies for the firm and studied the changes and then bankruptcies with the new changes have mushroomed and while the bankruptcy practice only consumed about 10% of my total law practice, from September of 1987 through December 31, 1987, I filed 21 individual and corporate bankruptcies, consisting of Chapter 13's, Chapter 11's and 7's and from the first of 1988 until my departure in May of 1988, I filed about five more. I handled bankruptcies from individuals and corporations in all the surrounding counties as there was apparently no attorney in the area outside of Columbia who then handled them, and I was fully competent to handle all styles from individual through business reorganization and I also represented creditors in bankruptcy matters.

As managing partner, I was cognizant of most of the pending cases, but I had moved toward a business and tax planning role as the firm's representative of local banks. My services at that time as personal attorney for a savings and loan and my representation of various business interest dictated that my time be then spent at roster meetings, interrogatories, pleadings and depositions. Because these commitments required large blocks of my time and were more profitable, as mentioned above my limited criminal practice had ceased. I had also limited my Family Court practice to a minimum and would have eliminated it entirely if family problems were not interwoven with business relationships. The savings and loan that I represented, First Federal, converted to stock ownership and I prepared proxy statements and obtained their approval for the years 1986 and 1987, and, in 1987 for Palmetto State Savings and Loan. Palmetto State and First Federal merged after I became a judge.

I represented numerous realtors and builders and handled numerous warranty and contract disputes.

After my election to the bench and swearing-in on May 3, 1988, I have presided over numerous civil and criminal trials, heard agency appeals, and non-jury merit and motion matters."

Judge Kinard reported he has held the following judicial office:
"Elected to Circuit Court, served from May 3, 1988 continuously. Resident Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit."

Judge Kinard provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Mary Whitaker v. Catawba Timber Company, Court of Common Pleas, Kershaw County, South Carolina (81-CP-28-159), decision May 3, 1982, Judge Walter J. Bristow, Jr.

The Plaintiffs in 1967 agreed to accept an increasing yearly rental for a 66 year term for about 260 acres and further executed an option to purchase for $15,000.00 any time after the 20th year increasing 5% per year from the 21st year through the 66th year of the lease term. Plaintiff filed suit seeking cancellation of the lease and option after I attempted to exercise the option to purchase for the company. Basically, the Plaintiff alleged inadequacy of consideration and that the option violated the rule against perpetuities. I paid the consideration into court and counterclaimed, seeking specific performance. After a trial without a jury before Judge Bristow, he executed an order granting specific performance and we immediately closed the purchase. A group of cases do hold such a clause violative of the rule and that issue was novel to South Carolina; however, my research had found the majority rule to hold favorable in similar circumstances, including a then recent Georgia decision involving a landowner, a paper company and a 60 year lease. Catawba Timber is a subsidiary of Bowater and many thousands of acres were under option under similar leases. House counsel for Bowater advised me that based on my research, they ascertained that their options in several states would possibly be held to violate the perpetuities rule in those states and they accordingly exercised all their options to purchase rather than risk litigating the issue again which, of course, as sole counsel, found the case to be significant;

(b)   Foxwood, a Limited Partnership v. Town of Kershaw, 80-CP-20-10, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, decision July 14, 1980, Judge George Coleman.

The Town of Kershaw refused to permit an apartment project to connect its water and sewer facilities after earlier granting permission. The suit was for a writ of mandamus and also sought injunctive relief alleging basically that the city was estopped, that water hook ups were ministerial functions and could not be arbitrarily withheld, and that quasi-zoning by granting of withholding water taps denied equal protection. Judge Coleman ordered the Town to furnish the services. The Town filed Notice of Appeal, which was eventually dismissed in early 1981. Incidentally, our clients then sought issuance of permits and the Town refused, resulting in our filing suit seeking damages and a contempt order against each council person. Prior to hearing on the contempt matter, the Town agreed to cooperate and we filed an Order of Dismissal in June of 1982, with the apartment project finally commenced in late 1982 and completed. I feel this case to be significant in that it again shows that if you persevere, elected officials will be compelled to perform their legal duty, and will acknowledge that they are also under the law;

(c)   The State v. McKinley Thomas, Murder Indictment, Trial in Richland County, South Carolina.

This was a criminal case about 25 years ago when Theodore Byrd and associates marched two Kershaw County deputies off I-20 near Elgin, killed Officer Potter and severely injured a fellow officer. The case was tried by Solicitor John Foard before Judge Grimball just before the Solicitor's defeat to Jim Anders. The trial was widely publicized and took a week to try. I spent at least one month working on that unpopular court appointed defense, including many trips to Columbia, and never received any compensation, as the defense fund was exhausted when claim was filed, as I recall. The trial was complex, many attorneys were involved, including the Richland County defense group. I served as Chief Counsel for this defendant and examined every witness and argued to the jury. We successfully overcame the old 'hand of one is hand of all' argument in the face of previous knowledge brought out in the trial that Byrd had killed another officer the previous night with the defendant and others in attendance and also that all defendants were holding guns on the officers when Byrd started shooting. The jury found the defendants, except Byrd who had plead guilty, not guilty of murder and other related charges, finding guilt only of larceny of the officers' pistols, as I recall. Overcoming the Solicitor's vigorous presentation and the legal issues presented make the case appear significant to me. My jury arguments, since I felt the defendants should be found guilty, against the hand of one theory was the most trying moment in my career and while I did not falter during the argument, I honestly never felt that a not guilty verdict was within the realm of possibilities. I took no pride in that verdict when received, but I did learn to rethink some of my previous conceptions of how juries arrive at verdicts, and I feel that my trial skills were helped by my participation in that apparent hopeless decision;

(d)   Helen Best, et al. v. L.L. DeBruhl, Court of Common Pleas, Kershaw County, South Carolina.

I was chief counsel in this case, ably assisted by the late Judge Clator Arrants and Senator Donald Holland, decided over 25 years ago, which involved suit by the Plaintiff against the then Sheriff of Kershaw County alleging false imprisonment and violation of various civil rights statutes growing out of the Sheriff's arrest of three middle age ladies from the Bethune area on alleged drug possession. A reliable informant advised the Sheriff that the ladies who were under surveillance had certain drugs in their possession and where they were to be. The Sheriff picked up the ladies and brought them to the jail and asked if his wife could search them (this was before we had any female officers in the County) to which they consented, provided they could first use the bathroom, which consent was then given (our Sheriff was then younger and not as experienced). Obviously, the subsequent search uncovered no controlled substances. The case was difficult to defend as some procedures were not properly followed and the Sheriff refused to identify his informant or permit us to present other drug related evidence damaging to the Plaintiffs, earlier obtained by his force. The case was tried before Judge Wade Weatherford and resulted in a verdict for the Defendant. The case seems significant in that it was widely publicized and the favorable verdict tended to discourage frivolous suits locally against elected officials; in fairness, we would have been pressed to have won the case had suit been filed in Federal Court due to the minor procedure violations mentioned above, the Plaintiffs' attorneys permitted us to paint a damaging portrait of their clients by innuendo, which would probably not have been permitted in Federal Court;

(e)   Hovis v. Wright, Fourth Circuit, January 10, 1985, 84-1128.

This was a bankruptcy matter where I filed for a school teacher in bankruptcy and claimed as exempt from bankruptcy proceeding, the State's retirement contributions of my teacher/debtor, which amount at that time exceeded $8,000.00. Judge Davis, on motion of the Trustee and hearing, ruled that the Trustee could reach the State retirement fund. I appealed and Judge Perry for the District Court held that the Trustee could not reach the funds. A subsequent appeal was taken to the Fourth Circuit, where it was held that the funds could not be reached. This case was very important since not only my individual teacher, but all State employees were affected by the outcome. I don't know the exact number but about 40 State employees' retirement benefits were riding on the outcome of this decision at the time of the final adjudication. I did not actually appear before the Fourth Circuit as I asked the Attorney General to intervene since the State's interest appeared great and they graciously furnished counsel. I did file a brief, but did not appear before the Fourth Circuit."

Judge Kinard reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I did announce and ran against Judge Owens Cobb for the seat I now hold in 1983, but withdrew prior to the election; filed for the Supreme Court vacancies in elections held in Spring of 1994 but withdrew prior to final ballots; filed for the Chief Justice Position of the Court of Appeals in 1999 but withdrew prior to final ballots."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Kinard's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Kinard to be "a very eminently qualified and very highly regarded judge, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."

Judge Kinard is married to Kay Livingston Davis. He has three children.

Judge Kinard reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Kershaw County Bar Association (President 1967);

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   American Bar Association;

(d)   American Judicature Society;

(e)   Fellow - South Carolina Bar Foundation;

(f)   John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court (President 1998);

(g)   American Judges Association;

(h)   South Carolina Association of Circuit Court Judges (President 2002)."

Judge Kinard provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce (Former President);

(b)   Camden Country Club (Former President);

(c)   Camden Sertoma Club (Former President);

(d)   I was a member of Kershaw Lodge #29 but withdrew in good standing several years ago;

(e)   Member of a dance club (resigned in 1992 - unable to attend dances);

(f)   Snipe Club;

(g)   Also a contributing member to various charities, e.g. S.C State Museum, Fine Arts Commission, Riverbanks Zoo, etc."

Judge Kinard additionally provided:

"I have held court in all 46 counties and have always moved dockets without, I feel, unduly pressuring attorneys or litigants. I was head of the first Bar sponsored Settlement Week. The success of that project has assisted the Bar in moving toward ADR in many actions. I was the first Presiding Judge over the State Grand Jury - have qualified four (4) of the State Grand Juries, and served as Presiding Judge of the State Grand Jury for over two (2) years and am currently alternate. I managed the the pilot ADR project in Florence County for one year as Chief AD Judge and currently manage ADR as Chief AD Judge in Richland County, the other pilot county. Two (2) years of service as Chief Administrative Judge (Criminal) in the Fifth Judicial Circuit and over five (5) years as Chief Administrative Judge (Civil) in the Fifth Judicial, Chief Administrative Judge over the Fourth Judicial Circuit, the Eighth Judicial Circuit and the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, has prepared me for virtually any matter and presiding in a high media area has opened my service to full public scrutiny."

The Commission appreciated Judge Kinard's participation in the selection process at its request, despite his seniority on the Circuit Court bench. They noted that Judge Kinard recently received an award as the "Trial Judge of the Year" from the S.C. Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates commending him for his outstanding service as a Circuit Court judge. The Commission found Judge Kinard qualified and nominated for re-election to the Circuit Court.

J. Derham Cole
Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Cole since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cole meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Cole was born in 1952. He is 54 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Cole provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cole. Judge Cole demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Cole reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Cole reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Cole reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Cole to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Cole described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Attendance at the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention educational seminars;

(b)   Attendance at the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association educational seminars;

(c)   Attendance at the South Carolina Judicial Conference educational seminars;

(d)   Attendance at the South Carolina Circuit Judges Associations meeting educational seminars."

Judge Cole reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   The South Carolina Bar Association meeting 'View from the Bench - Common Mistakes Occurring in the Trial of Cases in the Circuit Court;'

(b)   The South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association meeting 'Punitive Damages after Campbell v. State Farm Insurance Co;'

(c)   The Spartanburg County Bar Association 'The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.'"

Judge Cole reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Cole did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cole did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cole has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Cole was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Cole reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Cole reported he has held the following public office:

"I was elected as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from Spartanburg County District #32 and held office from 1987 - 1992. All reports were filed timely and never subjected to any penalty."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Cole appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Cole appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Cole was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Assistant Circuit Solicitor, Seventh Judicial Circuit - 1977 - 1985, Criminal trial experience;
Cole and Taylor - 1985 - 1992, general practice of law;
Circuit Court Judge - 1992 - 2006."

Judge Cole reported he has held the following judicial office:
"Resident Judge, the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, Seat #1, 1992 - 2006, elected by the South Carolina General Assembly."

Judge Cole provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 349 SC 589 (2002);

(b)   Jones v. State Farm Ins. Co., 364 SC 222 (2005);

(c)   State v. Gentry, 363 SC 93 (2005);

(d)   The State v. Binney, 362 SC 353 (2005);

(e)   Clark v. White Oak, 04-CP-42-1932 (2006)."

Judge Cole reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I ran unsuccessfully for the office of Solicitor for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in 1984."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Cole's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Cole to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Cole "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Cole is married to Candace Linn Carlson Cole. He has three children.

Judge Cole reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   The South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   The Spartanburg County Bar Association."

Judge Cole provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   The Spartanburg Country Club;

(b)   Board of Directors The Bobby Chapman Junior Invitational Golf Tournament."

The Commission noted Judge Cole's excellent contributions to the Circuit Court as a legal jurist. They commented that he has ably served for fourteen years on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Deadra L. Jefferson
Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Jefferson since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jefferson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Jefferson was born in 1963. She is 43 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Jefferson provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jefferson.

Judge Jefferson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Jefferson reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures but anticipates that she will spend less than $100.00 on stationary, postage, and copying costs.

Judge Jefferson reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Jefferson reported that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Jefferson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Jefferson described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   1/25/2001   Annual Criminal Law Update;

(b)   1/26/2001   Family Law Section Seminar;

(c)   5/3/2001     2001 Family Court Judges Conference;

(d)   7/2/2001     2001 Orientation School for New Circuit Judges;

(e)   8/23/2001   Annual Judicial Conference;

(f)   9/14/2001   SCBLA Conference;

(g)   1/25/2002   Annual Criminal Law Update, Annual Civil Law Update;

(h)   5/8/2002     Circuit Judges' Annual Conference;

(i)     8/1/2002     SCTLA Annual Convention;

(j)     8/22/2002   Annual Judicial Conference;

(k)   1/23/2003   Annual Criminal Law Update;

(l)     1/23/2003   Annual Civil Law Update;

(m)   1/24/2003   Annual Criminal Law Update;

(n)   4/11/2003   Women Lawyers in the New Millennium;

(o)   5/7/2003     SC Circuit Judges' Conference;

(p)   7/14/2003   National Judicial College General Jurisdiction Course;

(q)   8/7/2003     SCTLA Annual Convention;

(r)   8/21/2003   Annual Judicial Conference;

(s)   11/6/2003   SCDTAA Annual Conference;

(t)     1/23/2004   Annual Criminal Law Update;

(u)   1/23/2004   Annual Civil Law Update;

(v)   4/14/2004   National Conference on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts;

(w)   5/5/2004     SC Circuit Judges' Annual Conference;

(x)   8/6/2004     SCTLA Annual Conference;

(y)   8/19/2004   Annual Judicial Conference;

(z)   8/19/2004   Supreme Court Judicial Oath of Office;

(aa)   11/15-19/04 National Judicial College Advanced Evidence;

(bb)   1/21/2005   Annual Civil Law Update;

(cc)   1/21/2005   Annual Criminal Law Update;

(dd)   4/13/2005   National Conference on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts;

(ee)   5/11-13/05   Annual Circuit Judges Conference;

(ff)   8/24/2005   Annual Judicial Conference;

(gg)   9/25/2005   Annual SC Solicitors Conference;

(hh)   1/27/2006   Annual Criminal Law Update;

(ii)   1/27/2006   Annual Civil Law Update;

(jj)   4/26/2006   National Conference on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts;

(kk)   6/10-15/06   National Judicial College Handling Capital Cases;

(ll)   5/10/2006   Annual Circuit Judges Conference;

(mm)   8/23/2006   Annual Judicial Conference."

Judge Jefferson reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Business Law Instructor, Trident Technical College Paralegal Program, 1993-1994 School Term;

(b)   'Rules, Rules, Rules' South Carolina Practice and Procedures Update, Presenter on the issue of Family Court Rules, SC Bar, March 20, 1998;

(c)   Speaker/Panel Participant Wiley A. Branton Symposium, National Bar Association, October 24, 1998;

(d)   'Current Issues in Attorney's Fees', Presenter, SC Bar Association, November 6, 1998;

(e)   Recent Developments in Family Law, 'Six by Six' CLE Seminar, Presenter, Charleston County Bar Association, December 10, 1998;

(f)   'Adjudication Hearings', Presenter and Contributor to Family Court Judges Juvenile Workbook, SC Association of Family Court Judges, May 20, 1999;

(g)   'Tips from the Bench', Adoption, Presenter, SC Bar Association, February 25, 2000;

(h)   'The Role of the Judge and Guardian ad Litem in Abuse and Neglect Proceedings' Judges Panel, South Carolina Guardian ad Litem Conference, April 14, 2000;

(i)     'Women, Leadership and the Law', Brown Bag Lunch Panel Participant, SC Women Lawyers Association and College of Charleston Women's Studies Program, September 22, 2000;

(j)     Family Law Update and Tips from the Bench, Presenter, Charleston Lawyers Club, May 2, 2001;

(k)   'The Use of Psychological Evaluations in Juvenile Proceedings', Panel, Children's Law Center, May 18, 2001;

(l)     Judges Panel, 3rd Annual Children's Law Conference, May, 2001;

(m)   December 13, 2002, Hot Tips III, 'Appeals and Motions';

(n)   April 11, 2003, Women Lawyers in the New Millennium, 'Ethics Issues from Various Judicial Perspectives';

(o)   November 15-19-2004, National Judicial College, Advanced Evidence, Group Discussion Leader;

(p)   June 20, 2003, SCDTAA Trial Academy Judge;

(q)   December 2004, 2004 Local Government Attorneys' Institute, Administered Oath;

(r)   January 2005, 9th Annual Probate Court Seminar, Administered Oath;

(s)   September, 2005, SCBLA, Judicial Selection in South Carolina, Judicial Panel;

(t)     September 26, 2005, SC Solicitors' Association Conference, Criminal Law Update, 'Recent Court Decisions';

(u)   October 20, 2005, Charleston School of Law Professionalism Series, 'Civility and Ethics';

(v)   November 4, 2005, SC Defense Trial Lawyers Ethics and Civility **In Trial - unable to make the presentation;

(w)   February 15, 2006, Charleston School of Law Ethics & Professionalism presentation;

(x)   May 1, 2006, Law Day, Panel Presentation Judicial Selection in South Carolina, Charleston School of Law;

(y)   6/10/2006, National Judicial College, Handling Capital Cases, Group Discussion Leader;

(z)   September 29, 2006, SCBLA, 'Civil Practice.'"

Judge Jefferson reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Jefferson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jefferson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jefferson has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Jefferson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Jefferson reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Jefferson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Jefferson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Jefferson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1989.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   Law Clerk to the Honorable Richard E. Fields of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Charleston, S.C., August 1989 through August 1990. Primary Responsibilities: legal research, preparation of jury charges, preparation of Orders, scheduling of motions, all tasks required to prepare the Judge and myself for trials/hearings during the term and all other daily tasks as required by the Judge that ensured the smooth operation of Court;

(b)   McFarland and Associates, Attorney, October 1990 through March 1996. Trial practice focusing on the following areas: Domestic Relations, Civil Litigation (all types), Probate Law, Real Estate Law and Criminal Law;

(c)   Resident Family Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, elected to serve February 14, 1996 through June 2001;

(d)   Resident Circuit Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, elected to serve May 31, 2001 to the present."

Judge Jefferson further reported that she has held the following judicial office: "Resident Family Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat Five, elected February 14, 1996. My service in this seat began April 1, 1996, and concluded in June 2001 when I was elected to the Circuit Court. I was elected to this position by the General Assembly. The Family Court is a statutory court of limited and specific jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Family Court is set forth in S.C. Code Annotated section 20-7-420, et seq. (i.e. divorce, custody, child support, name changes, juveniles, equitable distribution, adoptions, abuse and neglect, and as further set forth in the statute).
Currently a Resident Circuit Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1. My service in this seat began in June 2001. I was elected to this position by the General Assembly on May 30, 2001. The Circuit Court is South Carolina's Court of general jurisdiction. It has a civil court, the Court of Common Pleas, and a criminal court, the Court of General Sessions. In addition to its general trial jurisdiction, the Circuit Court has limited appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Probate Court, Magistrate's Court, and Municipal Court, as well as appeals from certain agencies."

Judge Jefferson provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Evening Post Publishing Company, et al. v. City of North Charleston, 357 S.C. 59, 591 S.E.2d 39 (Ct. App. 2003), 363 S.C. 452, 611 S.E.2d 496 (2005);

(b)   State v. Washington, 367 S.C. 76, 623 S.E.2d 836 (Ct. App. 2006);

(c)   Owner's Insurance v. Clayton, et al., 364 S.C. 555, 614 S.E.2d 611 (2005);

(d)   Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Moore, 369 S.C. 493, 632 S.E.2d 862 (2006);

(e)   State v. Stephen C. Stanko, 99-GS-22-918."

Judge Jefferson reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I ran for the seat that was to be vacated by the Hon. Robert R. Mallard in or about January 1995 through March of 1995. I went through the screening process successfully and was found qualified to hold judicial office. I voluntarily withdrew from the process prior to the election. I was subsequently elected to the Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 on February 14, 1996."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Jefferson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Jefferson to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."

Judge Jefferson is not married. She does not have any children.

Judge Jefferson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   Charleston County Bar Association;

(c)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges Association;

(d)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association."

Judge Jefferson provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   The Life Center Cathedral, Charleston, S.C. Trustee Ministry, 2001-present; Co-Founder and Director of Young Women's Ministry 'YWCE', 1999-present;

(b)   Charleston Chapter of the Links, Inc., Co-Chair Services to Youth 2000-2001; Corresponding Secretary 2004-2006; Chair Bylaws Committee 2006-present;

(c)   Former member Junior League of Charleston, former Strategic Planning Committee, Community Project Development Committee, Advisory Planning Committee, and President's Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity;

(d)   Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., 1982-present;

(e)   The Post and Courier Feature Article August 6, 2001;

(f)   The Post and Courier 'High Profile' Article May 7, 2005;

(g)   'The Heritage List, 9 Dazzling Women of Spirit and Humility' Celebrate Your Heritage Magazine, Spring 2005;

(h)   NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award 2003;

(i)     Greater Charleston YWCA Lifetime Achievement Award 2004;

(j)     Advisory Board Charleston School of Law 2002-present;

(k)   Converse College Board of Trustees 2002-present, Committee on Trustees, Enrollment Committee and Student Affairs; previous Academic Affairs Committee;

(l)     Converse College Board of Visitors 2001-2002;

(m)   April 24, 2003 - Founder's Day Speaker Converse College;

(n)   Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee 2000 to the present;

(o)   South Carolina Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution 2002 to the present, User Education Sub-Committee;

(p)   Co-Chair 9th Circuit Courthouse Security Commission 2006;

(q)   Associate Acting Justice South Carolina Supreme Court for the terms December 1, 2005 and June 10, 2004;

(r)   Associate Acting Judge South Carolina Court of Appeals for the term June 19-13, 2003 - during this term I sat En Banc with the Court, authored two (2) opinions and participated on seven (7) other panels/opinions;

(s)   Designated by Justice Toal to represent the Judicial Department at the National Conference on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts 2003-present;

(t)     Designated as Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes for the 9th Circuit as follows: General Sessions July 1, 2002-January 5, 2003; Common Pleas January 6, 2003-January 3 2004; General Sessions January 4, 2004-July 3, 2004 and Common Pleas January 1, 2006-December 30, 2006;

(u)   Assigned exclusive jurisdiction of the following cases by the Supreme Court: April 29, 2003 (03-GS-47-4) Statewide Grand Jury, State v. Bunker, et al.; December 2, 2003 (01-CP-18-0074A) Boyd v. Nationwide; June 28, 2004 (03-GS-38-2411-2413), State v. Levi Bing, Jr.; October 3, 2004 (2002-CP-15-471 and 494) Carter v. Steedley, et. al.; May 6, 2005 (05-GS-22-0918) State v. Stephen C. Stanko; October 3, 2005 (1996-GS-32-3341) State v. Jeffrey L. Jones; March 7, 2006 (04-CP-18-1951) Price v. Jones Ford, Inc.;

(v)   September 6, 2005 - Nominated for the inaugural class of the Lowcountry Diversity Leadership Academy developed by the American Institute for Managing Diversity and the Richard W. Riley Institute of Government, Politics and Public Leadership at Furman (had to decline due to the demands of the Court schedule);

(w)   September 21, 2006 - Nominated for the Lowcountry Diversity Leadership Academy;

(x)   July 2006 - Invited by the National Judicial College to be a group discussion leader for the General Jurisdiction Course (had to decline due to the demands of the Court schedule; however, I have been asked to participate when the schedule will allow my participation)."

Judge Jefferson additionally provided:

"I served as law clerk to the Hon. Richard E. Fields of the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. During my time with him I had the unique opportunity to observe and participate in dozens of trials and hearings and observe a 'master jurist.' He taught me the importance of 'people skills.' I learned the role of judge is central to the lawyers and the litigant's perception that the system afforded them a fair trial/hearing. In addition, my legal research and writing skills were refined during this process. These skills were further refined during my time on the bench. I count myself fortunate to have found my vocation in life and attempt to walk worthy of that vocation. It is a rare privilege to have been allowed to serve the citizens of South Carolina as a Family Court Judge and Circuit Court Judge for the past ten (10) years.
At the outset I want to state that I love being a Circuit Court Judge. The last five (5) years have been enjoyable, rewarding and intellectually challenging. I have learned much about the law and human nature. I was taught that the position of a judge should be a continual growth process. I believe that I have continuously grown in my judicial perspective. I still have the same enjoyment for my work as the day I began five (5) years ago. The Circuit Court has one of the largest caseloads within the judicial system with over four thousand (4000) filings per judge. I believe that I have been a productive member of the Court. My re-election will create the opportunity for continued intellectual growth while allowing my continued contribution to the court system and the welfare of the community."

The Commission noted that Judge Jefferson is known as an excellent jurist on the Circuit Court bench. They commented that she demonstrated superior proficiency on the Commission's Practice and Procedure examination. The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for re-election to the Circuit Court.

J.C. "Buddy" Nicholson, Jr.
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Nicholson since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Nicholson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Nicholson was born in 1942. He is 64 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Judge Nicholson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Nicholson.

Judge Nicholson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Nicholson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Nicholson reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Nicholson reported he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Nicholson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Nicholson described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   17th Annual Criminal Law Update on January 25, 2002;

(b)   2002 Annual Convention on August 1, 2002;

(c)   Judicial Conference on August 22, 2002;

(d)   Circuit Judges' on May 8, 2002;

(e)   SC Circuit Judges' on May 7, 2003;

(f)   18th Criminal Law Update on January 24, 2003;

(g)   Annual Convention on August 7, 2003;

(h)   19th Criminal Law Update on January 23, 2004;

(i)     2nd Annual Civil Law Update on January 23, 2004;

(j)     SC Circuit Judges on May 5, 2004;

(k)   Judicial Conference on August 19, 2004;

(l)     Judicial Oath of Office on August 19, 2004;

(m)   Seminar for Chief Judges on December 10, 2004;

(n)   SC Circuit Judges on May 5, 2005;

(o)   Judicial Conference on August 24, 2005;

(p)   Alternate Dispute Resolution on January 27, 2006;

(q)   21 Annual Criminal Law Update on January 27, 2006;

(r)   Annual Judicial Conference on August 23, 2006."

Judge Nicholson reported that he has taught the following law-related course:
"ADR at SC Bar Convention."

Judge Nicholson reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Nicholson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Nicholson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Nicholson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Nicholson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Nicholson reported that he does not recall his Martindale-Hubbell rating.

Judge Nicholson reported the following military service:
"July of 1965 to August of 1970 active duty and Air National Guard for seventeen years. Retired Lt. Colonel 1971 to 1988."
Judge Nicholson reported he has held the following public office:
"I was elected to County Council" in Orangeburg County "from 1976 to 1982."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Nicholson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Nicholson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Nicholson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"During the thirty-three years as a practicing attorney and judge, I practiced in all areas of law. Fogle & Watson - 1973, Fogle & Nicholson-1975; J. C. Nicholson - 1975-1978; Nicholson & Williams - 1978 - 1981; Assistant Solicitor in Greenville - 1982, Epps & Krause - 1982-1985; Krause & Nicholson 1985-1994; Epps, Nicholson & Stathakis - 1995 - 3-1-99; Circuit Judge 3-1-99 to present."

Judge Nicholson provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

(a)   Allstate Insurance Company v. R.L. Webb, et al., (August 16, 1999);

(b)   Unisys v. The South Carolina Budget and Control Board Division of General Services Information Technology Management Office, 346 S.C. 158, 551 S.E.2d 263 (2001);

(c)   William F. Hendrix III v. Gene Taylor, Sheriff of Anderson County, 353 S.C. 542, 579 S.E.2d 320 (2003);

(d)   State of South Carolina v. Lewis Blassingame, (April 20, 2004);

(e)   James M. Charping v. Jon Ozmint, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Memorandum Opinion #2006-MO-024 (July 3, 2006).

Judge Nicholson reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"Judicial candidate for at large seat #13 in February '96."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Nicholson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Nicholson to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Nicholson "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Nicholson is married to Janet Elaine Shirley Nicholson. He has four children and one step-child.

Judge Nicholson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Anderson County Bar Association;

(b)   SC Bar - House of Delegates '95 - '2000;

(c)   ADR Commission appointment by Chief Justice '03 to present."

The Commission noted that Judge Nicholson has a good reputation as a Circuit Court judge for the Tenth Judicial Circuit and commented on his great demeanor in his courtroom. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Anne Gue Jones
Family Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Jones since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jones meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Jones was born in 1965. She is 41 years old and a resident of Orangeburg, South Carolina. Judge Jones provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1990.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jones.

Judge Jones demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Jones reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Jones reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Jones reported that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Jones to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Jones described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   2001:

4/27/01 - SC Bar -Cool Tips from the Hottest Domestic Lawyers; 5/3/01 - SC Court Administration - Family Court Judges Conference; 7/2/01 - SC Court   Administration - Orientation School for New Judges; 8/23/01 - SC Court Administration - Judicial Conference; 10/5/01 - SC Judicial Dept. - Lexis/Nexis training; 12/7/01 - SC Bar - SC Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;

(b)   2002:

Jan. 2002- SC Bar - Family Law Section Meeting; Aug. 2002 - SC Trial Lawyers Association - Family Law Seminar; Aug. 2002 - SC Court Administration - Judicial Conference; Dec. 2002 - SC Bar - SC Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;

(c)   2003:

1/24/03 - SC Bar - Family Law - Part II; 4/30/03 - Family Court Judges Assn - Family Court Judges Conference; 8/7/03 - SC Trial Lawyers Association - Family Law Seminar; 8/21/03 - SC Judicial Dept. - Judicial Conference; Dec. 2003 - SC Bar - SC Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;

(d)   2004:

1/23/04 - SC Bar - Family Law Section Meeting; 4/28/04 - Family Court Judges Assn - Family Court Judges Conference; 8/5/04 - SC Trial Lawyers Association - Family Law Seminar; 8/19/04 - SC Judicial Dept. - Judicial Conference; Dec. 2004 - SC Bar - SC Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;

(e)   2005:

Jan. 2005 - SC Bar - Family Law Section Meeting; April 2005 - Family Court Judges Assn - Family Court Judges Conference; Aug. 2005 - SC Trial Lawyers Association - Family Law Seminar; Aug. 2005 - SC Judicial Dept. - Judicial Conference; Dec. 2005 - SC Bar - SC Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar;

(f)     2006:

1/27/06 - SC Bar - Family Law Section Meeting; 4/27/06 - Family Court Judges Assn - Family Court Judges Conference; 8/24/06 - SC Judicial Dept. - Judicial Conference."

Judge Jones reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Judge Jones reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Jones did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jones did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jones has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Jones was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Jones reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Jones appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Jones appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Jones was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1990.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Staff Attorney. South Carolina Supreme Court, Columbia, SC, August 1990 to June 1991. Responsibilities included researching and preparing memorandum opinions for the Court in the areas of criminal law, domestic law, civil law and appellate practice;
Partner. Bryant, Fanning & Shuler, Orangeburg, South Carolina, July 1991 to June 2001.

Primary responsibilities included handling all domestic and family court cases for the firm including divorce, separate maintenance actions, custody and visitation, child support cases, adoptions, DSS appointed cases and all other types of cases heard in family court. I also served as a Guardian ad Litem in numerous private custody cases. Other responsibilities included handling personal injury cases, some insurance defense, conducting title searches and real estate closings, preparing wills, probating estates and writing appellate briefs. During the course of my partnership with Bryant, Fanning & Shuler, my practice evolved such that in the last five years I was there ninety (90%) of my work was in the area of domestic and family law."

Judge Jones reported she has held the following judicial office:
"Family Court, First Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, July 2001 to present. "

Judge Jones provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Stillinger v. Stillinger, 00-DR-38-406 - affirmed in unpublished opinion from Court of Appeals, 2005-UP-516;

(b)   Hurley v. Main, 03-DR-18-637 - affirmed in unpublished opinion from Court of Appeals, 2006-UP-056;

(c)   Taylor v. Taylor, 04-DR-09-046 - Final Custody Order;

(d)   Taylor v. Taylor, 04-DR-09-046 - Divorce Decree;

(e)   Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat, 04-DR-38-540 - Divorce Decree."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Jones's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Jones to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Judge Jones is married to Carl Arthur Jones. She has three children.

Judge Jones reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Orangeburg County Bar Association;

(b)   S.C. Bar Association;

(c)   Served on the Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution by Order of Chief Justice Toal for two years beginning September 2002."

Judge Jones provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
"Junior Service League of Orangeburg - Sustainer Member."

Judge Jones additionally provided:

"In the last year, I have been a part of the first juvenile drug court program ever started in Orangeburg County, serving as the Judge for the program. The program is a collaboration of the solicitor's office, the department of juvenile justice, the McCord Adolescent Treatment Center and my office. It has been gratifying for me to see juveniles motivated to succeed in this program and to witness their responses when they are rewarded for their success."

The Commission commented that Judge Jones was a highly regarded member of the Family Court Bench in the First Judicial Circuit she serves and noted her service with the first juvenile drug court program in Orangeburg County. They found her qualified and nominated her for re-election to the Family Court.

Dale Moore Gable
Family Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to South Carolina Code Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Gable since her candidacy for reelection was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Gable meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Gable was born in 1955. She is 51 years old and a resident of Barnwell, South Carolina. Judge Gable provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Gable.

Judge Gable demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Gable reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Gable reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Gable reported that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Gable to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Gable described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Family Law Seminar, Annual S.C. Bar Meeting, Charleston, SC, January 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006;
Mandatory Judicial Conference, South Carolina Judicial Department, Columbia, SC, August 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006;
Bench/Bar Family Court or Domestic Relations CLE, December 2001, 2002, 2003,2004, 2005.
I have also attended the following:
Trial Lawyers Family Court Seminar,   August 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006;
General Jurisdiction Course, National Judicial College (2 week course), October 2004;
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Annual Conference, May 2006."

Judge Gable reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"1992-1997 I participated in several Probate Court seminars and panels, including 1993 Bench/Bar CLE; 1995 Bench/Bar CLE and 'New' Probate Judges School at the request of Court Administration;
2002-2006 I have taught in the New Family Court Judges School at the request of Court Administration each year."

Judge Gable reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Gable did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Gable did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Gable has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Gable was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Gable reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Gable reported she has held the following public office:

"I was the Barnwell County Probate Judge for 13 years. It is an elected position. I filed Ethics Commission reports as required. I have never been sanctioned or subjected to a penalty by the Ethics Commission."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Gable appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office She seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Gable appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Gable was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1980-1983 Staff Attorney, South Carolina Supreme Court. As a staff attorney, I worked under the direct supervision of Clyde N. Davis, Chief Staff Attorney, as well as at the direction of the Justices on the Court. As a staff attorney, I reviewed briefs, wrote memorandums concerning cases on appeal, researched law and drafted appellate rules;
1983-1984 Staff Attorney South Carolina Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division. As a staff attorney, I was directly responsible for the preparation and arguing of criminal appeal cases. At that time, all cases were appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court;
1984-1988 Associate of Bedingfield and Williams, Barnwell, SC. The law firm was a general Plaintiff's practice. My practice concentrated in Domestic Law, Real Estate, Social Security and Probate. I represented many clients in all of the above courts;.
1988-2001 Probate Judge, Barnwell County. I was responsible for the direct supervision of my office, including estate administration, judicial commitments and the issuance of marriage licenses. I was also responsible for the preparation of a yearly budget and worked with County Council on budgetary matters concerning my staff and my office. As a Probate Court Judge in a small, rural county, these responsibilities often included meeting with the families of deceased persons. I would explain my ethical limitations, but I would also explain the procedure of probating an estate. I presided over hearings relating to a persons competency, the contest of a will, the valuation of property and the qualifications of persons who desired to be appointed as a Personal Representative of an estate."

Judge Gable reported that she has held the following judicial office:

"I served as the Probate Judge for Barnwell County from October 1988 until July 2001. The Probate Judge is the only judgeship that is popularly elected in this state. Probate Court has jurisdiction over all matters relating to decedents and the administration of estates. It also has jurisdiction over the commitment of mental and chemically dependent persons, incapacitated adults and can appoint conservators and guardians for an incapacitated adult, as well as conservators for minors. I was elected to the Family Court Bench in February 2001 and began my term in July 2001. The Family Court is a statutory court vested with jurisdiction over all matters related to divorce, custody, juvenile offenders, adoptions, and abused and neglected children. South Carolina Code Section 20-7- sets forth the complete jurisdiction of this Court."

Judge Gable provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:
"Probate Court:

(a)   In the matter of Imogene Beaver Daniels, 99 ES 06 00 153;

(b)   In the Matter of Vera B. Sanders, 96 ES 06 000 83;

(c)   In the Matter of Karl D. Caughman, 94 ES 06 000 56;

(d)   Janice Taylor Clark v. Nettise Mae Jones, 99 ES 06 000 58;

(e)   In the matter of Henry Austin Taylor, 99 ES 06 000 58."
"Family Court:

(a)   Formby v. Formby, 2000 DR 05 076;

(b)   Beach v. Beach, 2005 DR 06 372;

(c)   SCDSS v. Bowie, 2004 DR 02 1635;

(d)   Davis v. Davis, 2002 DR 02 277;

(e)   Gregory v. Gregory 2004 DR 31 46."

Judge Gable reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I ran unsuccessfully for Barnwell County Council. The primary election was June 1986. I lost in a run-off election by less than 1% of the popular vote."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Gable's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Gable to be "a very eminently qualified and very highly regarded judge who would ably serve on the Family Court Bench."

Judge Gable is married to Timothy R. Gable. She has two children.

Judge Gable reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Member, South Carolina Probate Judges Association - President 1998 - 1999;

(b)   Member, South Carolina Family Court Judge Association - Family Court Advisory Committee;

(c)   Member, South Carolina Women Lawyers;

(d)   Member, Family and Conciliatory Courts Association;

(e)   Member, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges;

(f)   Member and Co-Chair, Courthouse Security Committee, Barnwell County."

Judge Gable provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Member, Seven Pines Baptist Church, Church Clerk, Hostess;

(b)   Barnwell Soccer Club member."

The Commission commented that Judge Gable has very ably served this state in multiple judicial capacities. They found her qualified for re-election to the Family Court.

W. Jeffrey Young
Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Young since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Young meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Young was born in 1955. He is 51 years old and a resident of Sumter, South Carolina. Judge Young provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Young.

Judge Young demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Young reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Young reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Young reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Young to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Young described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   SCTLA             August 2 & 3, 2001;

(b)   Redistricting Training Session       February 26, 2001;

(c)   Sexual Harassment           January 9, 2002;

(d)   20/20 An Optional View of 2002     January 9, 2002;

(e)   SC Family Court Bench/Bar       December 6, 2002;

(f)   SCTLA             August 2003;

(g)   Family Court Judges Conference     April 28,2004;

(h)   2004 Orientation School for New Judges   July 12-14, 2004;

(i)     SCTLA             August 5, 2004;

(j)     SC Family Court Bench/Bar       December 3, 2004;

(k)   Family Court Section Seminar       January 21, 2005;

(l)     Family Court Judges Conference     April 27, 2005;

(m)   General Jurisdiction,National Judicial College   October 17-27, 2005;

(n)   Family Court Bench/Bar         December 2, 2005;

(o)   New Tools for the Alimony Cases     January 27, 2006;

(q)   Family Court Judges Conference     April 26, 2006;

(r)   SCTLA             August 3, 2006;

(s)   SC Judicial Conference         August 22-25, 2006."

Judge Young reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"USC - Sumter, 1988-1996, Business Law Adjunct Faculty, Central Carolina Technical College, 1987-1992 Paralegal Instructor."

Judge Young reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Young did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Young did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Young has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Young was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Young reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

Judge Young reported the following military service:
"USAF-Active Duty, October 1977-September 1982, Honorable Discharge.
USAF-Reserve, September 1982-Present.
Currently assigned to USCENTAF Contracting Office at Shaw AFB, SC.
Previous reserve assignment at National Security Agency, Fort Meade, MD.
Current Rank: Lt. Colonel."

Judge Young reported that he has held the following public office:
"Elected to the SC House of Representatives 1994-1998 & 2000-2002."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Young appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Young appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Young was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Kenneth R. Young, Sumter, SC, May 1985 - June 1986, General Practice;
Young & Young, P.A., Sumter, SC, June 1986 - December 1990, General Practice;
Young, Young & Reiter, P.A., Sumter, SC, January 1991 - December 1997, General Practice;
W. Jeffrey Young, P.A., Sumter, SC, January 1998 - June 2004, General Practice with primary emphasis in Family Law;
Young & Graham, P.A., Sumter, SC, January 2004 - June 2004, General Practice."

Judge Young reported that he has held the following judicial office:
"Family Court, 3rd Judicial Circuit, July 1, 2004 - Present."

Judge Young provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Jozwiak v. Carberry, 2005-DR-43-1156, Sumter County. This was a highly contested change of custody matter with parents in different states;

(b)   Ankney v. Ankney, 2005-DR-40-2655, Richland County. This was a modification of alimony case as the parties had changed jobs and one had remarried;

(c)   Hetzel v. Hetzel, 2004-DR-40-1773, Richland County. This was a divorce and equitable division case where the parties had been separated for 18 years and the bulk of the assets were acquired during the separation;

(d)   DSS v. Wolfinger, 2004-DR-43-856, Sumter County. This was a Termination of Parental Rights case where DSS had not done all they could do, but the child had been away from the mother for over 4 years;

(e)   Davis v. Davis, 2004-DR-31-275, Lee County. This case involved a divorce and equitable division where there was really no fault and the wife had a stroke and a heart attack immediately prior to the separation."

Judge Young reported the following regarding his employment while a judge:
"US Air Force Reserve, Contracting Officer."

Judge Young reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"In 1998 I was defeated in my re-election bid for S.C. House Seat #67. In 2000, I ran again and was elected for my third term in the S.C. House of Representatives."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Young's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Young to be "qualified for the position of Family Court judge." The Committee commented that they "recommended this candidate without reservation."

Judge Young is married to Sharon Steele Young. He has four children.

Judge Young reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Sumter County Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar."

Judge Young provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Sumter Sunrise Rotary - Honorary Member;

(b)   Sumter Sertoma, Past President - Resigned;

(c)   Sumter Citadel Club, Past President;

(d)   Air Force Association;

(e)   Camellia Ball Dance Club, Past President;

(f)   Aglaian Dance Club, Past President - Resigned;

(g)   American Legion Post #15 - Resigned;

(h)   Sumter Chamber of Commerce, Governmental Affairs Committee

- Resigned;

(i)     Salvation Army Boys Club Board of Advisors - Resigned;

(j)     First Presbyterian Church, Sumter, SC, Elder."

Judge Young additionally provided:

"As an Air Force Officer, I have traveled to the Middle East, South West Asia and Iraq on eight occasions, including support for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I have been awarded two Air Force Commendation Medals and the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal.

In 1989, I was selected as a member of the Rotary Group Study Exchange to Norway where I concentrated on Norwegian law study."

The Commission noted that Judge Young's quick intellect and personable demeanor have assisted him in ably serving as a Family Court judge. They found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Gordon B. Jenkinson
Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Jenkinson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Mr. Jenkinson was born in 1948. He is 58 years old and a resident of Kingstree, South Carolina. Mr. Jenkinson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Jenkinson.

Mr. Jenkinson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Jenkinson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Jenkinson testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Jenkinson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Jenkinson described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2001:

(a)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention: Various Seminars.
2002:

(a)   09/20/2002 Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Experts.
2003:

(a)   Family Court Bench and Bar;

(b)   Ethical Considerations and Pitfalls for the Family Law Lawyer.
2004:

(a)   Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Lawyers;

(b)   Revised Lawyers' Oaths and Ethics.
2005:

(a)   Ultimate Divorce Practice;

(b)   Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Lawyers;

(c)   Ultimate Divorce Practice."

Mr. Jenkinson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I taught business law and government courses c. 1975-1977 at the Williamsburg Technical College, Kingstree, SC. These were basic college credit courses."

Mr. Jenkinson reported that he has published the following:

"My novel Live Oaks was published by Nimrod House of Richmond, Virginia, in 1996. The History Press of Charleston, SC will publish my book titled Williamsburgh District: Its Early Settlers and the Homes They Built in winter 2006. R. L. Bryan will publish my book St. Albans Episcopal Church: A Short History of a Small Mission also in winter of 2006. I have not written any articles or books in the legal field."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Jenkinson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Jenkinson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Jenkinson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Jenkinson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Jenkinson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Mr. Jenkinson reported the following military service:

"I served in the US Army on active duty from July-October, 1974, as an Ordinance Officer. I was honorably discharged from the Reserves as a Captain about 1978. My selective service number was 3845-4932."

Mr. Jenkinson reported he has held the following public office:

"I was elected by the State Legislature in 1993 to serve on the South Carolina Coastal Council for a four-year term. I did not seek re-election."
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Jenkinson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Jenkinson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Jenkinson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I began practicing in the firm of Jenkinson and Jenkinson in November 1974 with my father, W. E. Jenkinson, Jr. and my brother, W. E. Jenkinson III. Initially I handled cases typically assigned to new associates such as minor wreck cases and family court files. I also handled a number of criminal cases by appointment since Williamsburg County had no public defender. In 1981, M. Duane Shuler and I were appointed co-public defenders for Williamsburg County, and at that time the majority of my caseload consisted of criminal cases. Mr. Shuler and I worked together in this capacity until 1988, when he was appointed assistant solicitor for the Third Judicial Circuit. I was the sole public defender for the next three years. During the eleven years that I was in this position, I tried hundreds of cases and handled five death penalty cases to conclusion. I was also charged with the responsibility of handling all court appointed juvenile cases in Family Court. In 1991, I resigned from the public defender's office to devote more time to my growing practice. My father passed away in 1991, and my brother and I took in two associates, Ernest Jarrett and Jennifer Kellahan in the mid 1990's, who are now partners. I began handling complex civil and family court cases and my brother began handling all criminal matters. In the latter part of the 1990's, as our junior partners gained more experience, we began to concentrate more in our areas of expertise. On March 1, 2002 I left this firm to establish my own law firm known as the Jenkinson Law Firm. My practice is now concentrated in the family law field."

Mr. Jenkinson further reported:
"Divorce and equitable division of property and child custody: I have handled hundreds of cases in these areas. At least three complex equitable division cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Child custody: I have handled numerous contested custody cases through the years, probably in the range of sixty files.
Adoption: I have also handled many private adoptions and I also work closely with the Region IV Office of the SC Department of Social Services in their special needs program.
Abuse and neglect: From July 2001-June 2002 I served as contract attorney for the Georgetown Department of Social Services. During that time period I handled an estimated 150 abuse and neglect cases and made an estimated 75 court appearances.
Juvenile justice: In my eleven years as public defender, I also handled hundreds of juvenile cases. I have not been retained on a juvenile case, however, in many years."

Mr. Jenkinson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:     0;

(b)   State:       approximately 75 times a year."

Mr. Jenkinson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       29%;

(b)   Criminal:     1%;

(c)   Domestic:   70%."

Mr. Jenkinson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       3%;

(b)   Non-jury:   97%."

Mr. Jenkinson provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Jenkinson's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Wise v. Broadway, 325 S. C. 273, 433 S. E. (2d) 857 (1993). This was an automobile accident case in which the Plaintiff I represented sustained significant injuries when he was rear-ended by a truck. The trial judge struck punitive damages even though there was evidence of violation of at least one statute. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision. This case generated much interest from the insurance defense bar because they felt that if the trial judge was affirmed, it would be much more difficult for the issue of punitive damages to go to a jury. Both the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association and the South Carolina Trial Lawyers' Association filed amicus briefs;

(b)   State v. McKnight, 353 S. E. (2) 471, 291 S. C. 10 (1987). I was the lead attorney in this drug prosecution of six people. We successfully moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to a defective search warrant. The Supreme Court upheld the trial judge's order, finding that the state search warrant statute had not been complied with by the arresting officers. As a result of the Court's ruling, all charges against the Defendants were dismissed;

(c)   State v. Cooper, This 1978 case was one of the first death penalty cases that was called for trial after the death penalty was reinstated in Furman v. Georgia. My co-counsel and I recruited the assistance at trial of Milliard Farmer, a nationally known death penalty expert. We also hired a leading jury consultant when this specialty was in its infancy. As a result, we were able to disqualify many venire members. After the second day of trial when only 3 jurors had been seated, the State agreed to a plea for life for our client;

(d)   Faires, et. al. v. Kirk, unreported opinion of the Court of Appeals. I represented the homeowners in Charleston County who were sued by their building contractors. The case took about a week to try and it involved many complex valuation issues. The trial court ruled in favor of the homeowners and awarded me $42,000.00 in attorney's fees under the mechanic's lien statute. The contractors were unsuccessful in their appeal;

(e)   Gaskins v. Gaskins, (1995 - This divorce action involved a substantial marital estate with many issues such as transmutation, valuation of tobacco crop allotments and alimony. My client received a substantial amount of alimony and her equitable division award was increased by a ruling of the Court of Appeals."

The following is Mr. Jenkinson's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Redmond v. Redmond, 92-DR-21-2244;

(b)   Gaskins v. Gaskins, 95-DR-21-2920;

(c)   Herring v. Herring, 96-DR-21-2070;

(d)   Fennell v. Fennell, (unreported) Judgment Roll. 18709, filed 06/05/91;

(e)   Lottie Cooper McCrea v. Leverne Cooper, et. al. (1977)."

Mr. Jenkinson reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Mr. Jenkinson reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I ran for a Family Court seat in the Third Judicial Circuit and was defeated by the Honorable George McFadden in February, 2002. "
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Jenkinson's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Jenkinson to be well qualified for the position of Family Court judge. They commented that "he is very personable and has a great deal of experience in all trial courts including Family Court."

Mr. Jenkinson is married to Margaret Kelley Jenkinson. He has two children.

Mr. Jenkinson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Williamsburg County Bar Association: President 1999-2001;

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association Member of Resolution of Fee Disputes Panel for the Third Judicial Circuit 1998 - present;

(c)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association."

Mr. Jenkinson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Member and former president of the Williamsburg Hometown Chamber Bin 2004. I received a community image award based upon the construction of my office in Kingstree;

(b)   Member Williamsburg Historical Museum;

(c)   Member and former chairman of Williamsburg County Voter Registration Board;

(d)   Chairman of the Architectural Review Board for the Town of Kingstree;

(e)   Former Chairman, Quality of Place Commission of the Williamsburg County Chamber of Commerce;

(f)   Member, South Carolina Historical Society;

(g)   President of the Williamsburg County Courthouse Historical Commission."

Mr. Jenkinson additionally provided:

"I feel that my thirty-two years of extensive practice in the Family Court makes me well qualified to serve as a Family Court Judge."
"The Commission noted Mr. Jenkinson's reputation as an outstanding trial lawyer. They also commented on his good temperament which would serve him well on the Family Court. The Commission found him qualified and nominated to the Family Court.

Jamie Lee Murdock, Jr.
Family Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Murdock since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Murdock meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Murdock was born in 1952. He is 54 years old and a resident of Hartsville, South Carolina. Judge Murdock provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Murdock.

Judge Murdock demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Murdock reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Murdock reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Murdock reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Murdock to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Murdock described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2002:
Family Court Judges Conference, 5/1/2002;
Orientation School for New Judges, 7/8/2002;
Judicial Conference, 8/21/2002;
SC Family Court Bench/Bar, 12/6/2002.
2003:
Family Court Judge Conference, 4/30/2003;
SC Bar Family Law - Part II, 1/24/2003;
Judicial Conference, 8/21/2003;
SCTLA 2003 Annual Convention, 8/7/2003;
SC Family Court Bench/Bar, 12/5/2003.
2004:
Family Court Judges Conference, 4/28/2004;
Judicial Conference, 8/19/2004;
Family Law Section Meeting, 1/23/2004;
Judicial Oath of Office, 8/19/2004;
SC Family Court Bench/Bar, 12/3/2004.
2005:
SC Bar Family Law Section, 1/21/2005;
Family Court Judges Conference, 4/27/2005;
Annual Judicial Conference, 8/24/2005;
SC Family Court Bench/Bar, 12/2/2005.
2006:
SC Bar Family Law Section, 1/27/2006;
Family Court Judges Conference, 4/26/2006;
Mini Summit on Justice for Children, 8/22/2006;
Annual Judicial Conference, 8/23/2006."

Judge Murdock reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   In 1996 I lectured at the South Carolina Solicitors' Conference on some newly enacted juvenile legislation;

(b)   I have also participated as a presenter at the December 2003 Family Court CLE and at the S.C. Bar Convention in 2006;

(c)   I was a panel member/presenter at the Family Court CLE."

Judge Murdock reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Murdock did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Murdock did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Murdock has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Murdock was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Murdock reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Murdock appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Murdock appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Murdock was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"Immediately after graduating from law school, I clerked for Ratchford & Cooper, Attorneys at Law, until I completed the bar exam. Upon completion of the bar exam, I began practicing with Shand & Stanton in Hartsville, South Carolina (1983-1992). Our practice consisted primarily of debt collection, real estate and Family Court work, with a small amount of person injury and criminal practice. I engaged in the general practice of law. I probably spent approximately 50% of my time on Family Court matters."

Judge Murdock reported he has held the following judicial offices:

"(a)   1/1/86 - 6/25/92, Municipal Judge, Hartsville, SC.

Appointed, with jurisdiction over traffic and criminal offenses with a maximum possible sentence of 30 days or $200 fine;

(b)   1/1/89 - 7/1/92, Municipal Judge, Timmonsville, SC.

Appointed, with jurisdiction over traffic and criminal offenses with a maximum possible sentence of 30 days or $200 fine;

(c)   I served as Special Referee at the request of attorneys Dan Causey and Billy Spencer in a 1992 case involving a dispute about the ownership of some farm equipment;

(d)   7/1/92 - present, Family Court Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2. Elected."

Judge Murdock provided the following list of his five most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Wichman v. Wichman, involved the equitable apportionment of a large marital estate. Most of the marital assets were rental real estate properties. The case was appealed and affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Unpublished Opinion No. 96-UP-100. Approximately 90 exhibits were introduced into evidence, including 21 financial statements which the parties submitted to lending institutions at various times during the marriage. This was a long-term marriage. The wife had been a housewife for the entire marriage. The case also involved the issue of permanent, periodic alimony, as well as an award of attorney's fees;

(b)   Shaw v. Shaw, involved the equitable apportionment of marital property. A substantial asset in this case was the stock of a closely held corporation. The corporation engaged in the building supply business. The husband's family operated the business before the marriage. The parties were married for a period exceeding 20 years. The critical issue was whether the stock was non-marital property or whether it had been transmuted and was now marital property subject to apportionment. The case was appealed and affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Unpublished Opinion No. 95-UP-138;

(c)   Cooke v. Cooke, was a case involving the apportionment of a sizable marital estate. The parties were married at a very young age and the duration of the marriage exceeded 20 years. The parties had accumulated a large marital estate, primarily due to the business acumen of the husband. In addition, the wife had attended and completed college during the marriage. The marital estate was apportioned with 45% of the estate being awarded to the wife and 55% being awarded to the husband. In addition, the parties were divorced in 2002, and the issue of equitable apportionment was reserved to be heard by the Family Court and that hearing took place in July of 2003. After the divorce but prior to the July 2003 hearing, the husband's father was killed in a fire, and the husband was the owner and beneficiary of a life insurance policy which was purchased by a business owned by the husband and his father. The apportionment of the $450,000.00 life insurance proceeds was an issue that was vigorously disputed during the trial. The case was affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in an Unpublished Opinion;

(d)   Glenn v. SCDSS, 353 S.C. 254, 578 S.E.2d 11 (2003). This Order resulted from an abuse and neglect matter and had two unique issues. DSS indicated this case of alleged abuse and had not filed an intervention or removal case in Family Court. First, there was a motion challenging Mr. Glenn's ability to file an action in Family Court seeking to have the case unfounded. (This is the first time I have ever heard of an alleged perpetrator filing such an action). Another Judge ruled on this motion. The second issue involved a request for sanctions against DSS under Rule 11 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Act. As a sanction, Mr. Glenn requested that DSS be required to pay his attorney's fees and costs. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's decision in ruling that the Family Court was allowed to award sanctions under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanction Act. However, the Court held that the facts in this case did not warrant an attorney's fees award. Therefore, the decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part;

(e)   Miles v. Miles, 355 S.C. 511, 586 S.E.2d 136 (Ct. App. 2003). In this case the former husband requested that his alimony payments to his former wife be terminated or reduced. When the parties were divorced in 1995, the husband agreed to pay $4,583.00 per month in alimony to the wife. The agreement provided that it was not modifiable by the parties or any Court without the written consent of the husband and the wife. However, the agreement did specifically provide that the Family Court was not prohibited from modifying and/or terminating the alimony provisions agreement as permitted pursuant to the law of the State of South Carolina. The husband alleged that the wife orally agreed to modify their prior alimony agreement and that the wife was living in a relationship which was tantamount to marriage. The wife agreed that in January of 1998 she and the husband agreed that alimony would be terminated after a two-year period (in January of 2000). This oral agreement was never reduced to writing and at the trial, the wife objected to alimony being terminated. The Court of Appeals affirmed my decision in their Opinion."

Judge Murdock reported the following regarding his employment while a judge:
"Since 1996, I have been a one-third owner of an automatic car wash in Hartsville, South Carolina. I am the secretary/treasurer of the car wash and as such, my main responsibility is bookkeeping."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Murdock's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Murdock to be "qualified for re-election to the position of Family Court Judge for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2." The Committee further commented that they "recommend[ed] this candidate without reservation."

Judge Murdock is married to Beverly Lorraine (Rector) Murdock. He has two children.

Judge Murdock reported that he is a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   Darlington County Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Family Court Judges."

Judge Murdock provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Hartsville Masonic Lodge;

(b)   Omar Shriner;

(c)   Hartsville Lions Club - member at large."

Judge Murdock additionally provided:

"I have had the opportunity to participate in a wide array of life experiences outside the legal profession. While a student, I worked on peach farms, on highway road crews, at a sawmill and planer, in the construction business as a laborer, as a Pinkerton guard, as a service station attendant, as a street vendor selling peanuts, on a land surveying crew, and I cut and hauled pulpwood. I have taught school, coached and worked as an insurance agent for my livelihood before attending law school. I was married with one child when I attended law school and paid for the expenses of my law school education. I believe that all of these experiences enable me to understand and relate to the vast majority of people who appear before me as litigants."

The Commission commented that Judge Murdock is known as a fair and courteous judge on the Family Court bench. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Leslie Kirkland Riddle
Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Riddle meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Riddle was born in 1958. She is 48 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Riddle provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Riddle.

Judge Riddle demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Riddle reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Riddle testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Riddle testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Riddle to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Riddle described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2005:
Family Law Section   01-21-05;
Family Court Judges   4-27-05;
Annual Judicial Conference   08-24-05;
SC Family Court Bench   12-02-05;
2004:
Family Law Section   01-23-04;
Family Court Judges'   04-28-04;
Annual Judicial Conference   08-19-04;
Judicial Oath of Office   08-19-04;
SC Family Court Bench   12-03-04;
Seminar for Chief Judges   12-10-04;
2003:
Family Law - Part 1   01-24-03;
Family Law - Part 2   01-24-03;
Family Court Judges'   04-30-03;
Annual Judicial Conference   08-21-03;
SC Family Court Bench   12-05-03;
2002:
Family Law Section   01-25-02;
Family Court Judges'   05-01-02;
Annual Judicial Conference   08-22-02;
SC Family Court Bench   12-06-02;
2001:
Family Law Section   01-26-01;
Family Court Judges'   05-03-01;
Hot Tips for the Criminal   06-29-01;
Annual Judicial Conference   08-23-01;
SC Family Court Bench   12-07-01."

Judge Riddle reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have taught the Bridge the Gap course for domestic relations for the past two years."

Judge Riddle reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Riddle did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Riddle did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Riddle has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Riddle was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Riddle reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Riddle appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Riddle appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Riddle was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1984 - 1986   5th Circuit Solicitor's Office prosecuted adult and juvenile criminal offenders in circuit and family court;
1986 - 1995   Kirkland, Dodson, Rush and Riddle handled criminal, domestic and personal injury cases and estate work. I represented the Richland County Department of Social Services on a contract basis and the Richland County Guardian ad Litem's office on a part-time basis for over 2 years. I also represented children in contested matters as a Guardian ad Litem;
1995 - Present   Family Court Judge for the 5th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2."

Judge Riddle reported she has held the following judicial office:
"Family Court Judge, June 1995 to Present."

Judge Riddle provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Keena Robins v. Brandon Robins 04-DR-40-3457;

(b)   Albert Watson, Jr. v. Kimberly Watson 03-DR-40-0515;

(c)   Terri Clark v. Michael Clark 02-DR-40-4459;

(d)   SCDSS v. Dominique Lewis, et. al 02-DR-40-1528;

(e)   William Butler v. Lynn Butler 02-DR-40-2774."

Judge Riddle reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"1994, ran for Family Court and lost to Donna S. Strom."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Riddle's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Riddle to be "a very eminently qualified and very highly regarded and outstanding candidate, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Judge Riddle is married to Charles Dayton Riddle III. She has three children.

Judge Riddle reported that she was a member of the following bar association and professional association:
"South Carolina Bar Association."

Judge Riddle provided that she was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.

The Commission commented that Judge Riddle is an outstanding Family Court judge and one of the best we have on the Family Court bench. The Commission found Judge Riddle qualified and nominated her for re-election to the Family Court.

Lillie C. Hart
Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Hart meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Ms. Hart was born in 1949. She is 57 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Hart provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1997.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Hart.

Ms. Hart demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Ms. Hart reported that she has not made any contributions in campaign expenditures.

Ms. Hart testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Ms. Hart testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Hart described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal Housing Update - 02/02/2001;

(b)   Family Law Task Force - 04/16/2001;

(c)   Ethics Rule 4.2 - 04/12/2002;

(d)   Volunteer GAL Conference 2002 - 08/23/2002;

(e)   How to Stay Out of Trouble in Three Easy Lessons - 11/01/2002;

(f)   5th Annual Children's Law Conference - 05/15/2003;

(g)   Guardian ad Litem Certification - 01/10/2003;

(h)   GAL Certification Training - 03/05/2004;

(i)     Hot Tips from Domestic Law Practitioners - 09/24/2004;

(j)     Family Law Training - 03/04/2005;

(k)   Children's Issues in Family Court - 03/18/2005;

(l)     Attorney ECF Training - 07/07/2005;

(m)   2005 Children's Law Conference - 10/13/2005;

(n)   Children's Issues in Family Court - 06/07/2006;

(o)   SC Black Lawyers' Assn. Summit and Retreat - 09/29/2006."

Ms. Hart reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   2002 Access to Justice Basic Lawyer Skills Training for Legal Services Attorneys sponsored by Access to Justice Foundation - Participated as training attorney in week-long comprehensive trial skills training;

(b)   'Services for Children' in 2003 Lay GAL Certification Training sponsored by SC Bar - Conducted workshop on GAL Responsibility for suggesting and advocating for intervention and services on behalf of child during litigation;

(c)   'Due Process for the Unwed Father in Adoption Proceedings in SC' in 2005 Family Law Training sponsored by SC Appleseed Legal Justice - Provided seminar on the statutory and case law that must be applied to assure protection of the rights of unwed fathers in adoption cases."

Ms. Hart reported that she has published the following:
"Lillie C. Hart, Primary Prevention and Service Learning: A Partnership, (1992)."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Ms. Hart did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Hart did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Hart has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Hart was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Hart reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Ms. Hart appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Ms. Hart appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Hart was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1997.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"August - September 1995:
Children's Law Project, USC, Columbia, SC - Research assistance to child welfare attorneys;
September 1995 - March 2002:
Palmetto Legal Services - Representation and advocacy for low-income persons in civil actions with concentration on cases that involved children including custody, SSI administrative appeals, school expulsion and IDEA cases and housing;
March 2002 - August 2002:
Draper and Hart, Lexington, SC - Private practice in civil law with focus on family law and probate law practice;
May 2002 - October 2006:
Children's Law Office, USC School of Law - Training DSS caseworkers in preparation for testifying and presentation of evidence as witnesses in child protection and termination of parental rights hearings;
September 2002 - Present:
Solo practitioner practicing almost exclusively in the family courts providing representation as advocate in the entire range of matters that come before the family court and as a guardian ad litem in custody, adoption, and paternity matters."

Ms. Hart further provided:

"Divorce and equitable distribution - I have handled approximately fifty (50) divorce and equitable distribution cases before the court. Though a large number of these cases have involved little or no property for equitable distribution, some have involved very substantial property including retirement accounts that required division. I have dealt with each of the fault grounds and I have dealt with one case that involved the issue of common law marriage.

Child custody - My most extensive experience in the family court is in the area of child custody. I have been involved in more than 120 child custody cases and have about equal level of experience as the advocate for parties and as guardian ad litem for children in private custody matters. I have dealt with a wide variety of issues in custody cases including third-party custodians, modification based on changed circumstances, relocation of custodians and UCCJA issues.

Adoption - I have handled approximately fifteen (15) adoption cases as advocate for a party. In most of the cases, I represented a relative seeking to adopt a child. I have also represented biological parents who defended against the adoption of the child.

Abuse and neglect - I have been involved in twenty-six (26) abuse and neglect cases representing defendants and intervening parties seeking custody or as the guardian ad litem for children. I also have maintained detailed knowledge of this area of the law as a trainer for the Children's Law Office.

Juvenile justice - I have handled only five (5) juvenile cases. I defended the juveniles in these cases. My employment with the Children's Law Office has afforded me opportunity to stay fairly informed of juvenile law and I have occasionally provided community workshops on juvenile law for youth and parents."

Ms. Hart reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   I have had only one experience in federal court in the past five years;

(b)   State:     I have averaged about eight (8) appearances per month in family court during the past five years."

Ms. Hart reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       5%;

(b)   Criminal:     0%;

(c)   Domestic:   95%."

Ms. Hart reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       2%;

(b)   Non-jury:   99.8%."

Ms. Hart provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Hart's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Linda Swanson, et. al., 97-DR-40-2885 consolidated with Alma Swanson v. SCDSS, et. al., 98-DR-40-1171. I represented the Plaintiff grandmother in the second case in this consolidated matter that involved termination of parental rights and custody being sought by a grandmother. It was significant for several reasons, but most importantly because of the issue of whether or not the minor child was unavailable to testify under S.C. Code Section 19-1-180. Appeal of the trial court decision had to be withdrawn when the grandmother died;

(b)   South Carolina DSS v. Alina Dawson, et. al., 02-DR-32-0975X, was a child removal case that required the intervention of my client, the biological father of the children. The non-resident father had not been named as a defendant in the case. It was significant because the agency counsel was required to recognize the importance of naming statutorily required parties in the child protection actions. In this case the father, though named on the birth certificates of the children, was not afforded due process and statutory rights as the non-custodial biological parent and had to intervene and get the order in the removal case vacated to eventually get custody of his children;

(c)   Timothy Etherton v. Elizabeth Etherton, 03-DR-40-0482, was a modification of custody case that related to an order issued in another state. It was significant for issues related to statutorily required procedure under UCCJA and the court's responsibility to review the prior order and give consideration to the transcript of the record of the previous proceeding;

(d)   Robinson and Robinson v. Simmons, et. al., 03-DR-40-4356, was a case in which I represented a biological mother contesting termination of parental rights (TPR) and the adoption of her child. It was significant for several reasons including the determination of the ancillary issue of the Plaintiff's request for name change despite the voluntary dismissal of the TPR and adoption claims;

(e)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Stephanie Nichols, et. al., 05-DR-40-0295, was a case that was significant because of the substantive question of whether a non-custodial father who was granted temporary custody of the child in the removal action could be granted custody at the final permanency planning hearing. The procedural issue was determinative in that he had not cross-claimed for custody in the removal action."

The following is Ms. Hart's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"I regret to say that I have not had the opportunity to handle a case before the appellate court. Though I have filed the notice of appeal in two family court cases, both had to be withdrawn."

Ms. Hart reported that she had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Hart's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Hart to be "a qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Ms. Hart is not married. She has two children.

Ms. Hart reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   South Carolina Black Lawyers' Association;

(c)   Columbia Lawyers' Association;

(d)   Solo/Small Firms Section;

(e)   National Association of Counsel for Children (Inactive)."

Ms. Hart provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Just 'Cause, 1999 - Present, President of the non-profit charitable organization, 1999 - 2004;

(b)   South Carolina Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities Board of Directors, 1999 - Present, Chair of the Board, 2002 - 2005;

(c)   South Carolina Appleseed Center for Legal Justice Board of Directors, 2004 - Present."

Ms. Hart additionally provided:

"I was selected as the 1997 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough Child Welfare Law Fellow."

The Commission commented on the diverse background as a former social worker and currently as a mediator, attorney, and guardian ad litem that Ms. Hart would offer to the Family Court bench. Thus, they noted that this experience would assist her service as a Family Court judge. The Commission found Ms. Hart qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court.

Rolly W. Jacobs
Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Jacobs since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jacobs meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Jacobs was born in 1946. He is 60 years old and a resident of Camden, South Carolina. Judge Jacobs provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jacobs.

Judge Jacobs demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Jacobs reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Jacobs reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Jacobs reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Jacobs to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Jacobs described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Family Law Section       1/26/2001;

(a)   ADR and Other Options in Abuse       1/27/2001;

(a)   Family Court Judges Meeting         5/3/2001;

(b)   West Law Training             9/7/2001;

(c)   Judicial Conference           /23/2001;

(d)   Family Law Part I Taxes           1/25/2002;

(e)   Children's Law Committee         1/26/2002;

(f)   Family Court Judges Conference       5/1/2002;

(g)   Family Law Part I             1/24/2003;

(h)   Family Law Part II             1/24/2003;

(i)   Children's Law Committee         1/25/2003;

(j)   Art of Advocacy             3/14/2003;

(k)   Family Court Judges Conference       4/30/2003;

(l)   SCTLA Annual Convention         8/7/2003;

(m)   Judicial Conference           8/21/2003;

(n)   Family Court Bench/Bar           12/5/2003;

(o)   SC Bar Family Law Section Meeting       1/23/2004;

(p)   Family Court Judge's Conference       4/28/2004;

(q)   SCTLA Family Law Seminar         8/6/2004;

(r)   Judicial Conference           8/19/2004;

(s)   NCFCJ Domestic Violence Seminar       10/24-27/2004;

(t)   Family Court Bench/Bar           12/3/2004;

(u)   SC Bar Family Law Section         1/21/2005;

(v)   Family Court Judge's Meeting         4/27/2005;

(w)   Judicial Conference           8/24/2005;

(x)   Family Court Bench/Bar           12/2/2005;

(y)   SC Bar Family Law Section         1/26/2006;

(z)   The Judge as Fact Finder and Decision Maker     5/13-18/2006;

(aa)   Family Court Judge's Meeting         4/26/2006;

(bb)   Judicial Conference           8/23/2005."

Judge Jacobs reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   December 2, 2005   Presentation on Judicial Sales in Family Court at the South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar in Columbia, SC;

(b)   May 19, 2006   Presentation on Family Law Sales, Deeds, and Liens at the Palmetto Land Title Association Spring Convention in Charleston, SC."

Judge Jacobs reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Jacobs did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jacobs did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jacobs has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Jacobs was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Jacobs reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Jacobs reported the following military service:
"June, 1968-June, 1972 Captain US Army. Regular Army OF114978.
Inactive, Honorable Discharge."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Jacobs appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Jacobs appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Jacobs was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1975 - 1977   Associate for Carl R. Reasonover - General Practice;
1977 - 1980   Partner, Reasonover and Jacobs - General Practice;
1980 - 1999   Sole Proprietor - General Practice;
1999 - present   Family Court Judge."

Judge Jacobs reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I ran for the same Family Court Seat in May and June 1989 and lost to Judge William R. Byars, Jr."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Jacobs's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Jacobs to be "a very highly qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Judge Jacobs is married to Karen Lee Ponist Jacobs. He has two children.

Judge Jacobs reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   SC Bar Association;

(b)   American Bar Association - Family Law Section;

(c)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges;

(d)   Kershaw County Bar Association Twice as Pres., VP and Sec. - Treas.;

(e)   SC Trial Lawyer's Association;

(f)   Phi Alpha Delta."

Judge Jacobs provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Boy Scouts Of America - My family received the Scouting Family of the Year Award in 1990 for Wateree District, Indian Waters Council and I received the District award of Merit the same year;

(b)   American Legion;

(c)   Veterans of Foreign Wars;

(d)   Disabled American Veterans;

(e)   Reserve Officers Association - Life Member."

Judge Jacobs additionally provided:

"I have served on the local boards of the following organizations: United Way for Kershaw County, Red Cross, YMCA and Cancer Society."

The Commission noted Judge Jacobs has ably served this state as a Family Court judge. They commented that he is a valuable asset to the bench. The Commission found Judge Jacobs qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Brian M. Gibbons
Family Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Gibbons since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Gibbons meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Gibbons was born in 1966. He is 40 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Judge Gibbons provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1992.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Gibbons.

Judge Gibbons demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Gibbons reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Gibbons reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Gibbons reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Gibbons to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Gibbons described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   The Municipal Attorney's Association Conference;

(b)   The SC Trial Lawyers Convention;

(c)   Completed the Family Court Mediation Program In 2/2002;

(d)   SC Family Court Bench/Bar, 12/99 - 2/054;

(e)   Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Practitioners 9/99 - 9/04;

(f)   Cool Tips from the Hottest Domestic Practitioners 4/01 - 4/04;

(g)   All the Family Law Courses at the SCTLA Convention;

(h)   General Jurisdiction Course at the National Judicial

College In Reno, NV From 7/9/06 - 7/20/06.
My CLE hours usually carry over every year."

Judge Gibbons reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I spoke at the December 2003 Municipal Attorney's Association Seminar on the status of invocations at municipal council meetings in light of the federal courts' rulings against the town of Great Falls, South Carolina. I was the town attorney."

Judge Gibbons reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Gibbons did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Gibbons did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Gibbons has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Gibbons was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Gibbons reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

Judge Gibbons reported he has held the following public offices:
"All appointed town/city attorney positions from 1994 through May 2005. These were appointed positions."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Gibbons appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Gibbons appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Gibbons was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1992.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
Associate - Hamilton, Hamilton, & Delleney PA August 1992 through December 1993;
Partner - Hamilton, Delleney, & Gibbons PA 1994 - May 25, 2005;
City Attorney - Chester, 1994 - 2000;
Town Attorney - Great Falls, 1997 - May 2005;
Town Attorney - Fort Lawn, 1998 - January 2005;

"I have been involved in a general practice law firm since coming to Chester out of law school. I have primarily practiced in the areas of family law, criminal, and personal injury for the last twelve years. I have practiced in bankruptcy court and have represented clients in civil litigation in common pleas and magistrate courts-both plaintiff and defense. I have represented the municipalities of Chester, Great Falls, and Fort Lawn in various litigations. I was elected to the Family Court on May 25, 2005."

Judge Gibbons reported he has held the following judicial office:
"Elected May 25, 2005, to Seat One of the Family Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit. Serving continuously since."

Judge Gibbons provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   DSS v. Garger (Spartanburg County - 04-DR-42-3628);

(b)   Estridge v. Estridge (Lancaster County - 04-DR-29-519);

(c)   Lane v. Lane (York County - 05-DR-46-1686);

(d)   Scott v. Scott (Lancaster County - 05-DR-29-133);

(e)   Hammond v. Hammond (York County - 06-DR-46-483)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Gibbons' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Gibbons to be "well respected in the community" and "very qualified for the position." The Committee stated that they had "no reservations concerning his re-election."

Judge Gibbons is married to Lorena C. Gibbons. He has three children.

Judge Gibbons reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   SC Bar - Sixth Circuit Representative, Young Lawyers Division;

(b)   SC Trial Lawyers Association - Board of Governors, Sixth Circuit Representative;

(c)   Chester County Bar - Sec./Treas.;
(d)   Municipal Attorney's Association;

(e)   SC Conference of Family Court Judges;

(f)   National Conference Of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."

Judge Gibbons provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Chester Rotary Club/Past President, Paul Harris Fellow;

(b)   Chester YMCA Board/Past President;

(c)   Chester/Fairfield Citadel Club - Past President, Sec./Treas.;

(d)   Blackstock Bluegrass Inc. - Past President;

(e)   The Citadel Alumni Association;

(f)   Richard Winn Academy - Board Member;

(g)   Palmetto Boys State Staff;

(h)   Board Of Deacons, Chester ARP Church - Past Chairman."

Judge Gibbons additionally provided:

"I have always been very involved in my church and community. I coach all of my children in their various sports. I have been actively involved with the American Legion Palmetto Boys State for the past 22 years."

The Commission commented that Judge Gibbons is doing an outstanding job as a Family Court judge in the Sixth Judicial Circuit. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Georgia V. Anderson
Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Anderson since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Anderson was born in 1952. She is 54 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Anderson provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.

Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Anderson reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Anderson reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Anderson reported that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Anderson described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Date     Hours     Topic
1-26-01   3       Family Law Section/SC Bar;
5-3-01     6.25   Family Court Judges Conference;
8-23-01   8.25   Judicial Conference/SCCA;
12-01     6       Family Court Bench-Bar/SC Bar;
5-1-02     6       Family Court Judges Conference;
1-25-02   3       Family Law/SC Bar;
8-22-02   8       Judicial Conference;
9-9-02     26     Domestic Conference/Reno, Nevada;
12-6-02   6       Family Court Bench-Bar;
4-30-03   6.5     Family Court Judges Conference;
1-24-03   3       Family Law - Part II/SC Bar;
8-21-03   7.5     Judicial Conference/SCCA;
12-5-03   6       Family Court Bench-Bar;
4-28-04   5       Family Court Judges Conference;
1-23-04   3       Family Law Section;
8-19-04   7.25     Judicial Conference/SCCA;
8-19-04   1       Judicial Oath of Office;
12-3-04   6       Family Court Bench-Bar/SC Bar;
12-10-04   5.5     Seminar for Chief Admin Judges/SCCA;
1-21-05   3       Family Law Section;
4-27-05   6       Family Court Judges Conference;
7-11-05   6       Orientation School for New Judges;
8-24-04   7.75     Judicial Conference;
12-2-05   6       Family Court Bench-Bar;
1-27-06   3       Family Law Section;
4-26-06   6       Family Court Judges Conference;
8-23-06   6       Judicial Conference;
8-22-06   6       Mini Summit on Justice for Children."

Judge Anderson reported that "I was a speaker and panelist at a Domestic Violence Seminar in August 2000. I was an instructor/panelist at the New Judges Orientation School in July 2005."

Judge Anderson reported that she has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Anderson reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

(a)   November 1978 - August 1983, Spartanburg County Public Defender;

(b)   September 1983 - Spartanburg County Assistant Solicitor;

(c)   October 1983 - June 1995, Spartanburg Court Magistrate;

(d)   July 1995 - present, Family Court Judge, 7th Circuit, Seat 1.

Judge Anderson reported she has held the following judicial offices:
"October 1983 - June 1995   Magistrate - criminal jurisdiction was 30 days or $1,000 fine. Civil jurisdiction was $2,500;
July 1995 - present     Family Court Judge."

Judge Anderson provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Edwards v. Campbell, Sup. Ct., Opinion No. 26194;

(b)   Foster v. Foster, Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-431;

(c)   Woodson v. Golden, Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion 2004-UP-034;

(d)   Merritt v. Merritt, Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion 2005-UP-009;

(e)   DSS v. Phillips, 365 SC 572, 618 S.E. 2d 922."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Anderson to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Anderson "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Anderson is married to David Franklin Anderson. She has three children.

Judge Anderson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   SC Bar Association;

(b)   Spartanburg County Bar Association;

(c)   Conference of SC Family Court Judges;

Served as Conference President 04-05, Vice-President 03-04, Sec.-Treas. 02-03."

Judge Anderson provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Trinity United Methodist Staff/Parish Committee, Jan. 02 - Dec. 04. Served as Chairman for years 2003 & 2004;

(b)   Trinity United Methodist Board of Trustees-trustee since Jan. 04;

(c)   Piggy Bank Investment Club since 1980. Social Club of 14 professional women. I have been serving as president since 2004;

(d)   Family Court Judges Advisory Committee, August 2001 - August 2005;

(e)   Chief Justice Toal's Blue Ribbon Task Force - 2004-2005."

The Commission commented that they appreciated Judge Anderson's able and diligent service on the Family Court bench for the Seventh Judicial Circuit. They found her qualified and nominated her for re-election to the Family Court.

James F. Fraley, Jr.
Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Fraley since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Fraley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Fraley was born in 1951. He is 55 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Fraley provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Fraley.

Judge Fraley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Fraley reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Fraley reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Fraley reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Fraley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Fraley described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   8/23/06   2006 Annual Judicial Conference;

(b)   8/22/06   2006 Family Court Judge Seminar (Mini Summit on Children);

(c)   7/10/06   Orientation School for New Family Court Judges Conference (speaker- adoption seminar only);

(d)   4/26/06   2006 Family Court Judges Conference;

(e)   8/3/06     2006 SCTLA Convention (Family Law Seminar - speaker);

(f)     1/27/06   Family Law Section;

(g)   12/2/05   S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar Conference;

(h)   8/24/05   2005 Annual Judicial Conference;

(i)     6/29/05   Attorney ECF Training;

(j)     4/27/05   2005 Family Court Judges Conference;

(k)   1/21/05   Family Law Section;

(l)     12/10/04   Seminar for Chief Administrative Judges (Moderator);

(m)   8/19/04   Judicial Oath of Office;

(n)   8/19/04   Judicial Conference;

(o)   4/28/04   Family Court Judges Conference;

(p)   1/23/04   Family Law Section Meeting;

(q)   12/5/03   Family Court Bench/Bar Conference;

(r)     8/21/03   Judicial Conference;

(s)   4/30/03   Family Court Judges Conference;

(t)     1/25/03   Children's Law Committee;

(u)   1/24/03   Family Law;

(v)   8/22/02   Judicial Conference;

(w)   8/1/02     SCTLA Annual Convention (Family Law Seminar);

(x)   8/1/02     Family Court Judges Conference;

(y)   1/25/02   Family Law Section;

(z)   9/7/01     Lexis-Nexis Training;

(aa)   8/23/01   Judicial Conference;

(bb)   5/3/01     2001 Family Court Judges Conference;

(cc)   1/26/01   Family Law Section."

Judge Fraley reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"Prior to coming on the bench, I taught a business law course at Rutledge College in Spartanburg, S.C. I have also lectured at a CLE approved seminar on the Family Court financial declaration and served as discussion leader for the seminar (early 1990's). I have lectured on two separate occasions at the seminar for Family Court judges (most recently 2006) regarding the experiences of a new Family Court Judge and on adoptions. I organized and moderated a seminar for the S.C. Court Administration for the Chief Administrative Judges (2004). I served on a panel of 3 Family Court judges to answer questions involving substantive and procedural issues in Family Court at the S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention (2006). I was a speaker at the 'Mini Summit' on Justice of Children (2006). I am scheduled to lecture at a Family Violence Conference on the topic 'Is it Family Court or Criminal Court?' on October 13, 2006."

Judge Fraley reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Fraley did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Fraley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Fraley has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Fraley was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Fraley reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Fraley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Fraley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Fraley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I began practicing law with Michael W. Skeen in November 1977 and we formed a partnership (Skeen and Fraley) shortly thereafter. In 1979, Paul Townsend McChesney, who had been serving as law clerk to then South Carolina Supreme Court Justice, C. Bruce Littlejohn, joined our firm. Shortly after Mr. Skeen's departure, Paul Townsend McChesney's father, the Honorable Paul S. McChesney, Jr. retired as judge of the Family Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit to join our firm (Fraley, McChesney and McChesney). This firm engaged in general practice through most it its history, with most of my practice devoted to family law. From time to time several other attorneys were associated with the firm on different occasions. In May of 1998, I was elected to the Family Court bench."

Judge Fraley reported he has held the following judicial office:

"I was elected by the General Assembly to the Family Court in May 1998 and have served since January, 1999."
Judge Fraley provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Laura Lee Mabry Ballenger v. Gerald John Ballenger, Jr.;

(b)   Jane and John Doe v. Jeff McAbee et al. (see opinion no. 4119, heard May 9, 2006, filed June 5, 2006);

(c)   Diane Q. Brown v. George C. Brown (see 362 SC 85, 606 S.E. 2d 785);

(d)   Tom Drake Kisling v. Donna Joan Allison (see 343 SC 674, 541 S.E.2d 273);

(e)   DSS v. Jekeithlyn Ross et al. see unpublished opinion 2006-UP 268, heard May 17, 2006, filed June 1, 2006."

Judge Fraley reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In the spring of 1995, I was a candidate for judicial office (Family Court, Seventh Circuit, Seat # 1.) I withdrew before the election."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Fraley's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Fraley to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Fraley "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Fraley is married to Margaret Karen Fraley. He has one child.

Judge Fraley reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges - Finance Committee Chair   (2006-2007), member of the Executive Committee (2005 to present)."

Judge Fraley provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Covenant Presbyterian Church (Deacon, Elder, Finance Committee chair (before I was Judge), Commitment chair, Church Office Nominating chair, adult Sunday School teacher, youth fellowship leader);

(b)   Former member of Spartanburg Civitan Club (served as Sergeant at   Arms and on the Board of Directors) more than 5 years ago;

(c)   Dorman High School PTA;

(d)   Carolina Foothills Civil War Roundtable."

Judge Fraley additionally provided:

"I feel I am respected by the Spartanburg Bar and by members of the Covenant Presbyterian Church, where I have been elected to numerous positions. My family is most important to me. Most of my spare time is spent with my wife and 19 year old daughter."

The Commission commented on Judge Fraley's excellent service to the Family Court bench as well as his additional service as a Committee Chair for the S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges. The Commission found Judge Fraley qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Joseph W. McGowan III
Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge McGowan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge McGowan was born in 1952. He is 54 years old and a resident of Laurens, South Carolina. Judge McGowan provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge McGowan.

Judge McGowan demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge McGowan reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge McGowan testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge McGowan testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge McGowan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge McGowan described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2001:   SC Bar Convention Family Law Section, Family Court Judges Conference, Judicial Conference, Family Court Bench Bar. Total hours received 23.50;
2002:   SC Bar Convention Family Law Section, Family Court Judges Conference, Judicial Conference. Total hours received 17;
2003:   SC Bar Convention Family Law Section, Family Court Judges Conference, Judicial Conference, Family Court Bench Bar. Total hours received 18;
2004:   SC Bar Convention Family Law Section, Family Court Judges Conference, Judicial Conference, Wofford and the Law, Judicial Oath of Office, Family Court Bench Bar. Total hours received 26.25;
2005:   SC Bar Convention Family Law Section, Family Court Judges Conference, Judicial Conference, Family Court Bench Bar, Annual SC Solicitors Conference, Orientation School for New Judges. Total hours received 55.08."

Judge McGowan reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"2005     Solicitors Conference-Training Juvenile Prosecutors;
2006     Solicitors Conference-To Train Juvenile Prosecutors;
2006     SC Bar Bench/Bar Seminar-To Moderate;
2004     Participant, Wofford and the Law;
2005     Instructor Orientation School for New Judges;
2006     Instructor Orientation School for New Judges."

Judge McGowan reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge McGowan did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge McGowan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge McGowan has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge McGowan was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge McGowan reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge McGowan reported he has held the following public office:
"Commissioner of Public Works, December 1994-May 1996. I was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Marshall W. Abercrombie, deceased November 23, 1994. All necessary reports were filed for the period of service."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge McGowan appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge McGowan appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge McGowan was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"From January 1979 until February 1994 I had a general practice (family law, real estate, personal injury and criminal law). Until his death on November 23, 1994, I practiced with Marshall W. Abercrombie in the firm of Abercrombie and McGowan. Thereafter I practiced as a sole practitioner until my election to the family court bench February 10, 1999. I have continuously served as a family court judge since this date."

Judge McGowan reported he has held the following judicial office:
"Family Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit Seat 1 February 10, 1999 until present."

Judge McGowan provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Posnick v. Posnick 03-UP 479 - Here my decision holding husband in civil contempt, requiring him to pay certain sums to purge the contempt, requiring him to pay to wife certain sums for the value of a second week wife was entitled to the use of a condominium, and requiring him to pay certain attorney's fees were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case has no special significance other than that it was appealed and upheld;

(b)   Stapleton v. Stapleton 02-UP 432 - Here my decision denying husband's request to reduce his alimony obligation and holding him in civil contempt was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The case has no special significance other than that it were appealed and upheld;

(c)   SCDSS v. Culbreath 00-UP-751 - Here my decision denying a motion for a continuance in a termination of parental rights case in which termination was granted was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The case has no special significance other than that it was appealed and upheld;

(d)   State of South Carolina, Petitioner, In the Interest of Diego Reyes Campos 04-JU-12-062 - Here after hearing all the evidence and testimony and weighing all the factors in Kent v. United States, 383 US 541 (1966), I decided that it was appropriate for a 14 year old charged with murder to be tried as an adult in the Court of General Sessions. These cases are quite rare and very emotional. This case received much media attention both during and after the trial, including mention in USA Today;

(e)   DiBenedetto v. DiBenedetto 99-DR-24-659 - This divorce action involved the possible incompetence of a party and how the same affected each party's ability to pursue a divorce. It also involved the assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, the adverse inference derived therefrom and its application per Griffith v. Griffith, 332 SC 630, 506 SE 2d 526 (Ct. App. 1998), to bar one from seeking relief."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge McGowan's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge McGowan to be "well respected and highly qualified." The Piedmont Citizens Committee stated that they had no reservations concerning [his] election to the position [he] is seeking.

Judge McGowan is married to Eleanor Harvey (Suzie) McGowan. He has two children.

Judge McGowan reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges, President."

Judge McGowan provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
"Kappa Alpha Order, Graves Province Court of Honor."

The Commission noted Judge McGowan's additional service as the President of S.C. Conference of Family Judges. The Commission found Judge McGowan qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Billy A. Tunstall, Jr.
Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Tunstall since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Tunstall meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Tunstall was born in 1954. He is 52 years old and a resident of Greenwood, South Carolina. Judge Tunstall provided in his application that He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Tunstall.

Judge Tunstall demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Tunstall reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Tunstall reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Tunstall reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Tunstall to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Tunstall described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   01/2001 - Family Law Section;

(b)   05/2001 - 2001 Family Court Judges;

(c)   08/2001 - 2001 Annual Conference;

(d)   08/2001 - Judicial Conference;

(e)   10/2001 - Lexis-Nexis Training;

(f)     01/2002 - Family Law Section II Taxes;

(g)   01/2002 - Family Law Section II Taxes;

(h)   05/2002 - Family Court Judges Conference;

(i)     08/2002 - 2002 Annual Convention;

(j)     08/2002 - Judicial Conference;

(k)   01/2003 - Family Law Section;

(l)     04/2003 - 2003 Annual Conference;

(m)   05/2003 - 2003 Annual Spring Conference;

(n)   08/2003 - 2003 Judicial Conference;

(o)   01/2004 - Family Law Section;

(p)   05/2004 - 2004 Annual Conference;

(q)   08/2004 - Judicial Conference;

(r)     01/2005 - Family Law Section;

(s)   04/2005 - 2005 Family Court Judges;

(t)     08/2005 - 2005 Annual Judicial Conference;

(u)   12/2005 - SC Family Court Bench;

(v)   01/2006 - Family Law Section;

(w)   05/2006 - 2006 Annual Conference;

(x)   08/2005 - 2006 Annual Judicial Conference."

Judge Tunstall reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"1987 - 1993, attorney Coach for the South Carolina High School Mock Trial Competition. Each year I taught Greenwood High School Students how to prepare and try a case for mock court competition. This included trial tactics, rules of evidence, and courtroom demeanor;
1996, taught the legal portion of the Constable Training Course at Piedmont Technical College. This course consisted of training in areas of criminal law;
1998, lectured on what newly elected judges should expect at the South Carolina New Judges School;
1999, lectured at the State Wide Bar association on recent case law and ramifications;

On several occasions I assisted in education programs sponsored by the South Carolina Bar Association to educate the public about the court system. My topic was Family Court."

Judge Tunstall reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Tunstall did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Tunstall did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Tunstall has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Tunstall was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Tunstall reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Tunstall appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Tunstall appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Tunstall was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"After graduation from Law School in December of 1979, I was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in May of 1980.

In May, 1980, I opened my office as a sole practitioner. My practice was a general practice, including civil, criminal, and family court work. I was also the Public Defender for the Greenwood and Abbeville Family Courts.

In 1981, I was employed by the Law Firm of C. Rauch Wise as an associate. I also accepted a part-time position as city Judge for Ware Shoals.

In 1982, I became a partner in the firm. The name of the firm was changed to Wise and Tunstall, Attorneys. I remained a partner in that law firm until July of 1997. The practice was general in nature, and was approximately eighty (80%) percent domestic.

In 1997, I became a South Carolina Family Court Judge."

Judge Tunstall reported he has held the following judicial office:

"Appointed Family Court Judge, July 8, 1997.

Elected Family Court Judge for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat Number Three - May, 6, 1998.
Re-elected Family Court Judge for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat Number Three, commencing 2001."

Judge Tunstall provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Ritchie v. Ritchie, 2004-DR-30-512;

(b)   King and King v. Ligons and Quarles, 2005-DR-24-676;

(c)   Hopper v. Hopper, 2004-DR-24-374;

(d)   Kirk v. Kirk, 2003-DR-24-298;

(e)   Pirri v. Pirri, 2002-DR-01-228."

Judge Tunstall reported the following regarding his employment while a judge:

"I was a part-time City Judge for Ware Shoals in 1983. My employer was the City of Ware Shoals. My job responsibilities included disposing of all City Charges brought by City Police Officers, issuing warrants, and setting bond on defendants."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Tunstall's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Tunstall to be "well respected and highly qualified." The Piedmont Citizens Committee also stated that they had "no reservations concerning [his] election to the position [he] is seeking."

Judge Tunstall is married to Bridget Hawkins Tunstall but the couple are in the process of a divorce. He has two children.

Judge Tunstall reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Trial Lawyers Association;

(b)   Executive Committee;

(c)   CLE Committee."

Judge Tunstall provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Main Street United Methodist Church Member 1959 - present;

(b)   Greenwood Country Club."

Judge Tunstall additionally provided:

"Member of the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission 1985 - 1988."

The Commission noted that Judge Tunstall has served ably in multiple judicial positions and that he is a distinguished jurist. The Commission found Judge Tunstall qualified and nominated Judge Tunstall for re-election to the Family Court.

Paul W. Garfinkel
Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Garfinkel since his candidacy was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and the complaint that was received earlier was withdrawn because the complainant did not testify.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Garfinkel meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Garfinkel was born in 1944. He is 62 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Garfinkel provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Garfinkel.

Judge Garfinkel demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Garfinkel reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Garfinkel reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Garfinkel reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Garfinkel to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Garfinkel described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Date         Title

January 26, 2001     Family Law Section;

May 3, 2001       Family Court Judges Conference;

July 15, 2001       NCJFCJ Annual Conference;

August 23, 2001     Judicial Conference;

September 7, 2001   West Law Training;

November 2, 2001   Lexis - Nexis Training;

December 7, 2001   Family Court Bench/Bar;

(b)   Date         Title

January 25, 2002     Family Law Section - Taxes;

January 25, 2002     Access to Justice;

May 1, 2002       Family Court Judges Conference;

May 5, 2002       Custody and Visitation;

July 14, 2002       Protecting America's Future;

August 1, 2002     South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Convention;

August 22, 2002     Judicial Conference;

September 29, 2002   South Carolina Solicitor's Conference;

December 6, 2002   Family Court Bench/Bar;

December 7, 2002   Family Law Ethics;

(c)   Date         Title

January 24, 2003     Family Law Part II;

April 12, 2003       American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers;

April 30, 2003       Family Court Judges Conference;

July 20, 2003       NCJFCJ Annual Conference;

August 7, 2003     South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Convention;

August 21, 2003     Judicial Conference;

December 5, 2003   Family Court Bench/Bar;

(d)   Date         Title

January 22, 2004     Trial and Appellate Advocacy;

January 23, 2004     Family Law Section;

March 28, 2004     Keepers of the Dream;

April 28, 2004       Family Court Judges Conference;

June 5, 2004       South Carolina Collaborative Law;

July 28, 2004       NCJFCJ Annual Conference;

December 10, 2004   Judicial Oath of Office;

(e)   Date         Title

March 20, 2005     National Conference on Juvenile   Justice;

April 27, 2005       Family Court Judges Conference;

July 11, 2005       Orientation School for New Judges;

July 17, 2005       NCJFCJ Annual Conference;

August 24, 2005     Judicial Conference;

September 16, 2005   Mechanics of Family Recovery Court;

September 16, 2005   Teaching Credit (Above);

November 14, 2005   Court Coordination Protocol;

December 2, 2005   Family Court Bench/Bar;

December 9, 2005   Family Court Procedure."

Judge Garfinkel reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   In May 2002, he taught a course at the National Symposium on Custody and Visitation and led a panel discussion on the same topic;

(b)   In July 2002, he lectured at the annual conference of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges on ways fathers who are incarcerated for failure to pay child support can become reunited with their children;

(c)   In September 2002, he participated on various panel discussions at the South Carolina Solicitors' Conference on various aspects of family law;

(d)   In July 2003, he moderated a discussion group at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Conference on children in crises;

(e)   In July 2005, he taught a course at a South Carolina Continuing Legal Education seminar on judicial perspectives of a family dependency drug court;

(f)   In February 2006, he lectured at the Charleston School of Law on pleadings and motions in Family Court;

(g)   In July 2006, he along with a co-presenter, gave a lecture on successful resolution of highly contested custody cases at the annual conference of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges;

(h)   In June 2005, and July 2006, he was an instructor at the school for new judges in Family Court."

Judge Garfinkel reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   Editorial Board of Marital Litigation of South Carolina, 3rd Edition; published 2003;

(b)   Consultant and Advisor to Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines; published 2005."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Garfinkel did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Garfinkel did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Garfinkel has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Garfinkel was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Garfinkel reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV (1995)".

Judge Garfinkel reported he has held the following public offices:

"In October, 1991, I was appointed to the State Occupational Safety and Health Administration Board and represented the First Congressional District until May, 1995. From 1992-94, I was State Board Chairman. I did not have to file a report with the State Ethics Commission and have never been subject to any penalty for same."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Garfinkel appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Garfinkel appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Garfinkel was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"From 1970-89, I was a sole practitioner handling exclusively civil law with an emphasis on family law and real estate. From 1989-95, I was associated with 8 attorneys, each maintaining an individual practice. My emphasis was exclusively on family law. The group was known as Riesen Law Offices."

Judge Garfinkel reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"Since July 1, 1995, I have served as Judge of the Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2. Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over domestic (family) and juvenile matters."

Judge Garfinkel further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I ran for Judge of Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1 from January-April 1993 and withdrew after being found 'Qualified' by the Joint Legislative Screening Committee."

Judge Garfinkel provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Vickery v. McJunkin, 04-DR-39-1319;

(b)   Lopez v. Pannone, 02-DR-10-5097;

(c)   Charleston County DSS v. Curry, et. al., 01-DR-10-2119 (affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Opinion 06-UP-178);

(d)   Hagood v. Hagood, 97-DR-30-0894;

(e)   Edelhoch v. Gross, 95-DR-40-6127."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Garfinkel's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Garfinkel to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Judge Garfinkel is married to Susan Anne (Naman) Garfinkel. He has three children.

Judge Garfinkel reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Charleston County Bar;

(b)   South Carolina Bar;

(c)   American Bar Association;

(d)   Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity;

(e)   South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges;

(f)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1995-present including member of National Board of Trustees, elected July, 2003 and re-elected July, 2006)."

Judge Garfinkel provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Received Doctorate of Humane Letters (D.H.L.) from MUSC, May, 2005;

(b)   Brith Sholom Beth Israel Synagogue, Parliamentarian;

(c)   Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America - Board of   International Governors;

(d)   South Carolina Children's Justice Task Force;

(e)   South Carolina Bench-Bar Committee;

(f)   Advisory Committee to Chief Justice on Family Court."

The Commission commented on how much they appreciate Judge Garfinkel's extraordinary service to the Charleston County Family Court through his Family Recovery Court, a pilot program that seeks to reunite families separated by substance abuse. They found him well qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Wayne M. Creech
Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Creech meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Creech was born in 1951. He is 55 years old and a resident of Pinopolis, South Carolina. Judge Creech provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Creech.

A complaint was filed before the Commission in opposition to Judge Creech's candidacy. The complainant, Ms. Elizabeth Free, was a friend of Wayne and Theresa Grainger, who went through a divorce in 2003 and who appeared before Judge Creech at an emergency hearing for a protective order on March 12, 2003, and again at a temporary hearing for spousal support on April 8, 2003. Ms. Free alleged in her complaint that at the March 12, 2003 hearing, Judge Creech engaged in the following behavior:

(1)   He disregarded Mrs. Grainger's emotional state and alleged drug and alcohol dependency;

(2)   He granted Mrs. Grainger $10,000 a month temporary support when the average monthly income was $5,400;

(3)   He improperly allowed photos of an earlier domestic abuse allegation; and

(4)   He was incompetent in conducting the Hearing on March 12, 2003.

Judge Creech thoroughly responded to the issues alleged in the complaint. The Commission found that Judge Creech's order from the March 12, 2003 hearing involving the Grainger case was supported by the facts and grounded in the applicable law, and had been based upon a settlement that the parties had entered into during the course of the hearing. The Commission further found that Ms. Free had not been present at the hearing, and that her complaint was based on what Mr. Grainger had told her and her reading of the transcript of the hearing. The Commission concluded that Ms. Free's complaint did not call into question Judge Creech's fitness to serve on the Family Court.

Judge Creech demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Creech reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Creech testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Creech testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Creech to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Creech described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   5/3/2000   Family Court Judges' Conference;

(b)   8/26/2000   Annual Judicial Conference;

(c)   12/1/2000   Family Law Seminar;

(d)   1/26/2001   Family Law Section;

(e)   5/03/2001   2001 Family Court Judges' Conference;

(f)   8/23/2001   Judicial Conference;

(g)   9/21/2001   Victims of Crime Seminar;

(h)   10/05/2001   West Law Seminar;

(i)     1/25/2002   Family Law Section II-Taxes;

(j)     5/01/2002   Family Court Judges' Conference;

(k)   8/22/2002   Judicial Conference;

(l)     1/24/2003   Family Law-Part I;

(m)   4/30/2003   Family Court Judges' Conference;

(n)   8/21/2003   Judicial Conference;

(o)   1/23/2004   Family Law Section Meeting;

(p)   4/28/2004   Family Court Judges' Conference;

(q)   8/19/2004   Judicial Conference and Judicial Oath of Office;

(r)   4/27/2005   2005 Family Court Judges' Conference;

(s)   8/24/2005   2005 Annual Judicial Conference;

(t)     12/2/2005   SC Family Court Bench;

(u)   1/27/2006   Family Law Seminar;

(v)   4/27/2006   Family Court Judges' Conference;

(w)   8/21/2006   2006 Annual Judicial Conference."

Judge Creech reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   February 25, 2000

Tips from the Bench

SC Bar CLE;

(b)   January 14, 2003

Berkeley County Magistrates Presentation

Common Law Marriage

Responsibility for Children (when it ends)

Domestic Abuse (with info. on firearms prohibition);

(c)   January 23, 2003

Technology Seminar at SC Bar Convention;

(d)   November 17, 2003

Charleston Bar

Morality and the Law;

(e)   July 12-14, 2004

Orientation for New Family Court Judges (Alimony);

(f)   November 19, 2004

Charleston Bar

Modifying Temporary Orders;

(g)   December 2, 2005

South Carolina Family Court Bench Bar

Temporary Relief in Family Court;

(h)   July 10-13, 2006

New Judge's School."

Judge Creech reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Creech did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Creech did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Creech has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Creech was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Creech reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Creech reported that he has held the following public office:
"Moncks Corner Town Attorney - Elected by Town Council - November 1981- March 1987."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Creech appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Creech appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Creech was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Law office of H. N. West - Associate - August 1976 - July 1977
Real Estate / Family Law;
Dennis and Dennis - Associate - July 1977 - January 1978
Real Estate / Family Law / Criminal Law / General Civil Litigation;
Dennis, Dennis, and Watson - Associate - January 1978 - November 1981
Real Estate / Family Law / Criminal Law / Municipal Law / Civil Litigation;
Watson and Creech - Partner - November 1981 - July 1983
Real Estate / Family Law / Criminal Law / Municipal Law / Civil Litigation;
Watson, Creech, and Tiencken - July 1983 - January 1987
Real Estate / Family Law / Criminal Law / Municipal Law / Civil Litigation;
Watson, Creech, Tiencken, and West - January 1987 - March 1987
Real Estate / Family Law / Criminal Law / Municipal Law / Civil Litigation;
Wayne M. Creech, Sole Practitioner - March 1987 - September 30, 1988
Real Estate."

Judge Creech reported he has held the following judicial offices:
"South Carolina Family Court - Ninth Circuit, Berkeley County Resident, Seat #4.

(a)   Elected by the S.C. General Assembly April 27, 1988 to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable Warren H. Jolly from October 1, 1988 - June 30, 1989;

(b)   Re-elected May 3, 1989 for term from July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1995;

(c)   Re-elected May 25, 1995 for term from July 1, 1995 - June 30, 2001;

(d)   Re-elected February 7, 2001 for term from July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2007."

Judge Creech provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   SCDSS v. the Father, the Mother and the Step-Father: Case # 88-Dr-10-0608.

This was the most complex and lengthy trial of my 18 year career. It was a child abuse / child custody case. I prepared the order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the S.C. Supreme Court;

(b)   State v. Annette Moody: Case # 92-JU-10-1738.

This is the first S.C. case in which a legal custodian was found in criminal contempt of court for failing to supervise a juvenile released to the care of a custodian on 'home detention'. The criminal Contempt sanction imposed was affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court without comment in an unpublished opinion;

(c)   Dorchester County Department of Social Services v. Angela Miller: 324 S.C. 445.

This case reflects one of my most significant moments of service since coming to the bench. Through the actions taken as a result of this decision, two little girls were protected from being reunited with their chronically abusive mother. They have been adopted and at last word were healthy and happy. My decision was upheld by the S.C. Court of Appeals;

(d)   Sharps v. Sharps: 342 S.C. 71.

In this case, wife sought an increase in alimony after the emancipation of her children and cessation of child support. Husband claimed that emancipation of the children was a foreseeable future event at the time of the initial alimony award and could not be used as a changed circumstance justifying an increase in alimony. The Court of Appeals agreed with husband and reversed my decision. The S.C. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed my decision;

(e)   Latimer v. Farmer: 360 S.C 375.

This child custody / relocation case was being tried at the time of the attack on the Twin Towers 9/11/2001. Father sought to take his children and move to Michigan. Mother objected, sought custody or in the alternative denial of father's right to move with the children. I granted father custody and allowed him to relocate to Michigan. The S.C. Supreme Court upheld my decision and changed S.C. law to eliminate the longstanding 'presumption against relocation'."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Creech's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Creech to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Judge Creech is married to Annette Lewis Cook Creech. He has four children.

Judge Creech reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Berkeley County Bar."

Judge Creech provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   First Baptist Church of Moncks Corner - Sunday School Teacher;

(b)   St. John's Baptist Church - Sunday School Teacher;

(c)   The Bridge Assisted Living - Sunday School Teacher."

Judge Creech additionally provided:

"I have a wide range of legal problem solving experience. I was in general practice for 11 years prior to my election to the Family Court bench. During that time, I served as Town Attorney and Prosecutor for the town of Moncks Corner. I was elected to the bench in 1988 and have held court in at least 24 of the 46 counties in South Carolina and twice have served as Chief Administrative Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit."

The Commission noted the sincere effort Judge Creech makes to be a good and fair judge on the Family Court bench as well as the excellent work ethic he brings to the court. They were also impressed with the outstanding score Judge Creech achieved on the Commission's practice and procedure examination. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Barry W. Knobel
Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Knobel since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Knobel meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Knobel was born in 1948. He is fifty-eight years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Judge Knobel provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Knobel.

Judge Knobel demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Knobel reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Knobel reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Knobel reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Knobel to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Knobel described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Family Law Section - SC Bar - 1/26/01;

(b)   Strategy to the Juvenile Court - NCJFC - 2/21/01;

(c)   2001 Family Court Judges Conference - ending 5/3/01;

(d)   Fundamentals of a Juvenile - 5/7/01;

(e)   2001 Annual Judicial Conference - ending 8/23/01;

(f)     Family Law Section II - Taxes - SC Bar - 1/25/02;

(g)   2002 Family Court Judges Conference - ending 5/1/02;

(h)   2002 Annual Judicial Conference - ending 8/22/02;

(i)     SC Family Court Bench/Bar CLE - 12/6/02;

(j)     Family Law Ethics - SC Bar - 12/7/02;

(k)   Family Law Section - SC Bar - 1/24/03;

(l)     2003 Family Court Judges Conference - ending 4/30/03;

(m)   2003 Annual Judicial Conference - ending 8/21/03;

(n)   Family Law Section - SC Bar - 1/23/04;

(o)   2004 Family Court Judges Conference - ending 4/28/04;

(p)   2004 Annual Judicial Conference - ending 8/19/04;

(q)   2004 New Judges Orientation School (instructor) - July, 2004;

(r)     Family Law Section - SC Bar - 1/21/05;

(s)   2005 Family Court Judges Conference - ending 4/27/05;

(t)     2005 New Judges Orientation School (instructor) - ending 7/11/05;

(u)   2005 Annual Judicial Conference - ending 8/24/05;

(v)   "Hot Tips" CLE on Domestic Relations - 9/23/05;

(w)   Ethics Update - Anderson Inn of Court - 10/26/05;

(x)   SC Family Court Bench/Bar CLE - 12/2/05;

(y)   Family Law Section - SC Bar - 1/27/06* (*The following are 'to-date':);

(z)   2006 Family Court Judges Conference - ending 4/28/06;
(1)   2006 New Judges Orientation School (instructor) - ending 7/12/06;
(2)   2006 Annual Judicial Conference - ending 8/25/06."

Judge Knobel reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Family Law Ethics - SC Bar - 12/7/02 - I was a panelist and prepared the program materials for this presentation;

(b)   2004 New Judges Orientation School - I was an instructor during this 3-day program;

(c)   2005 New Judges Orientation School - see (b), above;

(d)   2005 Annual Judicial Conference - I prepared the course materials and made the 'Family Court Update' presentation;

(e)   2005 SC Family Court Bench/ Bar CLE - I was the program moderator;

(f)   Children's Law program - SC Bar - 3/17/06 - I was one of the program speakers on proposed changes in the Family Court Rules and proposed legislation from the General Assembly;

(g)   2006 New Judges Orientation School - see (b) and (c), above;

(h)   2006 Annual Judicial Conference - I prepared the course materials and made the 'Family Court Update' presentation;

(i)     Several years ago I was a guest lecturer before the South Carolina Summary Court Judges Association with my presentation focused on criminal domestic violence and orders of protection (the exact presentation date is unknown);

(j)     In the spring of 2006 I was the guest lecturer at the Anderson/Oconee Summary Court Judges Association meeting speaking on judicial ethics;

(k)   In February, 2006, I made a presentation to the Oconee County Family Law Bar on proposed Family Court Rules changes."

Judge Knobel reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Knobel did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Knobel did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Knobel has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Knobel was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Knobel reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Knobel appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Knobel appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Knobel was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   I graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law on May 12, 1973, and I was admitted to the practice of law in South Carolina on November 3, 1973;

(b)   In January, 1974, I became an associate in the law firm of Chapman & Lowery, until May 1, 1975, at which time I formed a law partnership with Kenneth M. Mattison, Esq., in Anderson, South Carolina;

(c)   Mr. Mattison and I remained law partners until December, 1983, at which time we amicably dissolved our partnership, and I then became a sole practitioner until my election to the family court bench in May, 1998;

(d)   I had a general law practice with my family law cases ultimately consuming approximately 70% of my practice."

Judge Knobel reported he has held the following judicial offices:

"I was the Anderson Municipal Court judge from 1979 until 1984, sharing these duties with my then law partner, Kenneth M. Mattison. In 1984 I became a sole practitioner and I no longer had the time to invest in this position, and I resigned. [Ken Mattison is currently the full-time Municipal Court judge.] Judge Mattison and I were appointed to this position by the Anderson City Council.

Our municipal court handled only criminal matters (including traffic violations) which occurred within the Anderson city limits. The maximum sentence we could impose at that time was a fine up to $200.00 or imprisonment up to 30 days (we could sentence in the alternative). As the city judge, I also had the duties of a magistrate for offenses occurring inside the Anderson city limits. I was empowered to issue arrest and search warrants, set bond, and conduct bond and preliminary hearings.

The Anderson Municipal Court did not hear civil cases. In May, 1998, I was elected a Family Court judge by the General Assembly to fill the unexpired term of then Family Court Judge J. Franklin McClain. I was re-elected to a full six-year term in February, 2001.

The Family Courts of South Carolina are courts of limited jurisdiction, with the jurisdictional authority being derived from the statutes enacted by the General Assembly. The conduct of the Family Court is also directly affected by the appellate court decisions, the Family Court Rules, and the administrative orders of the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court."

Judge Knobel provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions.

"(a)   Tirado v. Tirado, 339 S.C. 649, 530 S.E.2d 128 (Ct.App. 2000): the principal issue appealed centered on this judge finding the former husband in contempt of court; however, the appellate court decision also provided a discussion on the husband's military retirement benefits. The case has been frequently cited in subsequent appellate court decisions;

(b)   Hillman v. Pinion, 347 S.C. 253, 554 S.E.2d 427 (Ct. App. 2001): this decision discussed the authority of an attorney to bind his/her client to the orders of the court. This case has been cited in subsequent appellate court decisions;

(c)   State v. Miller, 363 S.C. 635, 611 S.E.2d 309 (Ct.App. 2005): this case is the most recent appellate court decision addressing the factors/criteria involved in this judge's waiver of a juvenile's criminal case to the court of general sessions. The appellate court decision provided a detailed analysis of the 'waiver criteria' set forth in the United States Supreme Court case of Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), and discussed the applicability of that criteria to this judge's findings and conclusions;

(d)   Ramsey v. Ramsey, Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-321 (filed May 12, 2005): this was an interesting and difficult case involving the relocation (over the objections of the former husband) by a former wife and her children from Anderson, SC to Bluffton, SC, and how that relocation had materially affected the custodial rights and visitation privileges of the former husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judge's decision approving the relocation, and denying the husband's request for custody, but remanded a narrow issue affecting this judge's inclusion of a broadly-stated visitation privilege;

(e)   Bonner v. Bonner, Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-092 (filed February 13, 2004): this case involved this judge permitting the wife to go forward with the trial on the merits of her case, as presented in her counterclaim, in the absence of the husband who was the party-plaintiff and initial movant in this case. The husband sought to set aside the final divorce decree pursuant to Rule 59 and Rule 60, SCRCP. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judge's decision in an unpublished opinion."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Knobel's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Knobel "met and exceeded the criteria of the evaluative process." The Committee noted that Judge Knobel was "competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria."

Judge Knobel is married to Catherine Maria Calvo Knobel. He has two children.

Judge Knobel reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Anderson County Bar Association (past president);

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges:*

Immediate past president (August, 2005 - August, 2006);

Vice-president;

Secretary/Treasurer;

Annual conference coordinator.

*[I was the chairperson of the South Carolina Family Court Judges Advisory Committee from July, 2004 - August, 2006.]."

Judge Knobel provided that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.

Judge Knobel additionally provided:

"(a)   In December, 2000, I created the Anderson County Juvenile Drug/Intervention Court (JDIC) which remains a viable part of the juvenile justice system in Anderson County.

(b)   In July, 2004, I was a founder and participated in the national chartering of the Anderson, South Carolina American Inn of Court, which now has a membership of between 80 - 90 Anderson-area attorneys."

The Commission noted Judge Knobel's contributions in the creation of the Anderson County Juvenile Drug/Intervention Court as well as his excellent service to the Family Court. The Commission found Judge Knobel qualified for continued service and he was nominated for re-election to the Family Court.

Tommy B. Edwards
Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Edwards since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Edwards meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Edwards was born in 1949. He is 57 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Judge Edwards provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976. Judge Edwards has also been licensed as an attorney in Montana since 1977.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Edwards.

Judge Edwards demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Edwards reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Edwards reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Edwards reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Edwards to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Edwards described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"I amassed a total of 97.75 hours of CLE/JCLE credit between 2001 and 2005. These hours have been Family Court and Ethics related. I have attended all JCLEs (which are generally mandatory in nature) as well as others sponsored by the South Carolina Bar, the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges, South Carolina Court Administration, and the Anderson, SC Inn of Court.

(a)   In 2001, I completed the Family Law Section of the South Carolina Bar CLE in January, the South Carolina Family Court Judges Conference CLE in May, the Family Law Section of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association CLE in August, and the Joint Judicial Conference CLE in August;

(b)   In 2002, I completed the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges CLE in May, the Family Law Section of South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association CLE in August, the Joint Judicial Conference CLE in August, and the Family Court portion of the South Carolina Solicitors' Association CLE in September;

(c)   In 2003, I completed the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges CLE in April, the South Carolina Bar Family Inn Section CLE in January, the Family Law Section of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association CLE as well as the Joint Judicial Conference CLE in August;

(d)   In 2004, I completed the South Carolina Bar Family Law Section CLE in January, the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges Conference CLE in April, the Joint Judicial Conference CLE in August, and the Ethics seminar of the Supreme Court in August;

(e)   In 2005, I completed the South Carolina Bar Family Law Section CLE in January, the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges CLE in April, the Joint Judicial Conference CLE in August, Ethics Update by the Anderson, SC Inn of Court in October, and the Family Law Section of the South Carolina Bar Family Law Bench/Bar CLE in December."

Judge Edwards reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Taught courses in Juvenile Law and in Basic Criminal Procedure for Constables at Tri-County Technical College in mid 1980s;

(b)   Served on Bench/Bar panel at Family Law CLE in 1997;

(c)   Served on Judges' Panel, Department of Social Services Training Seminar, 1998;

(d)   Served on panel for JCLE, Family Court Judges Conference, 1998;

(e)   Presenter, Tenth Annual National Dropout Prevention Network Conference, Detroit, MI, 1998;

(f)   Guest lectured in Criminal Justice Division, Anderson University, Anderson, SC, 2005."

Judge Edwards reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Edwards did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Edwards did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Edwards has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Edwards was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Edwards reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Edwards reported the following military service:
"Active Duty: October 1971 to July 1973, 2LT.
Individual Ready Reserve: 1973 to 1985, CAPT.
Present Status: Completed military obligation.
Discharge: Honorable."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Edwards appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Edwards appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Edwards was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   November 1976 to September 1977:

Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA);

Attorney assigned to Montana Legal Services, Helena, Montana;

Practice involved consumer law and education and domestic relations;

(b)   October 1977 to July 1979:

Associate with French and Grainey, Ronan, Montana;

General practice;

(c)   July 1979 to January 1982:

Assistant Attorney General, South Carolina Attorney General's Office;

Assigned to and represented South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. Practice involved administrative law, prosecution of wildlife and commercial fishing cases, civil litigation in State and Federal Court, appellate practice before Supreme Court of South Carolina;

(d)   January 1982 to April 1985:

Associate, Larry C Brandt, PA, Walhalla, SC;

General practice with emphasis on real estate, commercial collections, civil litigation;

(e)   January 1982 to April 1985:

Part-Time Assistant Solicitor, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Oconee County;

Prosecution of criminal cases in General Sessions Court, prosecution of Juvenile matters in Family Court, representation of Department of Social Services in abuse and neglect cases in Family Court;

(f)   April 1985 to 1987:

Assistant Solicitor, Tenth Judicial Circuit (Full-Time);

Management of Oconee County Office of Solicitor, as well as prosecution responsibilities as set forth in (e) above in Oconee and Anderson Counties;

(g)   1987 to July 1991:

Deputy Solicitor, Tenth Judicial Circuit;

Same responsibilities as in (f) above plus supervision of attorney and support staff;

(h)   July 1991 to present:

Serving as Family Court Judge

Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat No. 3."

Judge Edwards reported that he has held the following judicial office: "Elected as Family Court Judge, July 1, 1991 to present."

Judge Edwards provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Glover v. Meggett, Case No. 1994-DR-10-1241:

This was a case wherein I was called upon to decide the amount of child support to be paid by Defendant, an NFL star at the time with a multi-million dollar salary, to the mother of two of his children who received AFDC and lived in public housing. Since Defendant's income was far beyond the Child Support Guideline tables, I attempted to structure an equitable support payment schedule which included adequate monthly payments accompanied by a contribution to an education trust fund established by the order.

No appellate review was sought;

(b)   Rauch v. Rauch, Case No. 1999-DR-07-1553:

This case was assigned to me by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in January 2000 at which time I conducted a pre-trial at which ten attorneys were present. After numerous temporary hearings, disposition of a myriad of pre-trial motions, and almost four weeks of trial, a Final Decree consisting of 64 pages was entered on April 16, 2002, followed by an Amended Final Decree on June 19, 2002. The case involved a high-profile couple with a multi-million dollar marital estate and four minor children. Each party had a list of witnesses which looked like the 'Who's Who' listing for their home county. Fortunately, I was able to assist in the resolution of the child-related issues by Temporary Order in early 2000. The next two years were spent in discovery and litigation of the grounds for divorce and equitable division.

There was no appellate review of their case. Plaintiff filed Notice of Intent to Appeal; however, the case was settled early in the appellate process;

(c)   Moon v. McKee, Case No. 1994-DR-10-2221:

This case was a contest for custody between paternal and maternal grandparents necessitated by the fact that the child's father had murdered her mother and then committed suicide. The case was made particularly difficult because the terrific emotional wounds suffered by each family as a result of the murder-suicide were still open and festering at the time of trial. This case is illustrative of the passionate, gut-wrenching, life-altering issues which the Family Court is called upon to decide.

No appellate review was sought;

(d)   Hardy v. Gunter, Case No. 1998-DR-37-830:

In this case I denied the Plaintiff's action to terminate Defendant father's parental rights on the grounds that he had failed to visit or support his children. I found that the circumstances of father's failure to visit did not constitute willful conduct on his part and that the father's failure to pay during the time he was applying for Social Security Disability was not willful. I found further that the Social Security benefits paid for the children as a result of the father's disability status constituted a material contribution made by the father for the upkeep of the children.

Affirmed on appellate review. 353 S.C. 128, 577 S.E.2d 231 (S.C. App. 2003);

(e)   Smith v. Smith, Case No. 1990-DR-04-1470:

This case involved the equitable division of a large marital estate in the divorce of a couple who had been married for many years. The Court of Appeals upheld my consideration of husband's conduct in attempting to better his position during the pendency of the action as well as prior to filing for divorce. I was also upheld in my refusal to deduct total marital debt from the gross value of the marital estate and, instead, specifically identifying individual items of debt and apportioning them without involving unrelated marital assets.

The Court of Appeals remanded the equitable apportionment to increase wife's share from approximately $247,000 to approximately $386,000. The award of alimony was affirmed.

Appellate Review: 327 S.C. 448, 486 S.E.2d 516 (S.C. App. 1997)."

Judge Edwards reported the following regarding his employment while a judge:
"High school football broadcaster (statistician), 1989-99, WAIM Radio;
Broadcast statistics during half-time and post-game for T.L. Hanna High School football games; Rick Driver, Supervisor WAIM."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Edwards's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Edwards to be "competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria." The Committee further reported that Judge Edwards "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Edwards is married to Patricia Hite Ross Edwards. He has three children.

Judge Edwards reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Montana Bar;

(c)   Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Court;

(d)   South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges;

(e)   Anderson (South Carolina) Inn of Court."

Judge Edwards provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Presbyterian College Board of Visitors;

(b)   Thallian Dance Club."

The Commission commented that during Judge Edwards's 15 years of service as a Family Court Judge, he has been noted for his fair and courteous treatment of litigants, parties, and witnesses. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Deborah Neese
Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Neese meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Ms. Neese was born in 1951. She is 55 years old and a resident of Ridge Spring, South Carolina. Ms. Neese provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Neese.

Ms. Neese demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Ms. Neese reported that she has made $236.62 in campaign expenditures for: copies ($6.88), folder ($2.49), resume paper and envelopes ($72.05), computer services and merge document ($85.00), and postage ($70.20).

Ms. Neese testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Ms. Neese testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Neese described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   07/19/2006: Traxler's 2006 SC Child Support Guidelines Training         (teleseminar);

08/10/2006: Lexington County ADR Training;

09/22/2006: Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Law Practitioners;

(b)   09/23/2005: Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Law Practitioners;

12/06/2005: SC Family Court Bench/Bar;

12/07/2005: Revised Rules of Professional Conduct;

12/16/2005: 20/20: An Optimal View of 2005 (presenter on family law);

(c)   08/17/2004: Overview of Title IV-D Child Support Cases (presenter);

12/03/2004: SC Family Court Bench/Bar;

12/10/2004: SC Local Government Attorneys' Institute;

(d)   12/05/2003: SC Family Court Bench/Bar;

12/12/2003: SC Local Government Attorneys' Institute;

(e)   10/11/1002: Appellate Practice in SC;

12/06/2002: SC Family Court Bench/Bar."

Ms. Neese reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   SC Bar Basic Skills CLE (presenter on appellate practice rules and procedures);

(b)   SC Bar CLE '20/20: An Optimal View of 2005' (presenter on family law cases);

(c)   Lexington County Bar CLE 'Overview of Title IV-D Child Support Cases' (presenter on the organization of the Child Support Enforcement Division, establishment and enforcement of child support orders, tools available for enforcement, incoming and outgoing cases under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act);

(d)   SC State College, substituted as adjunct professor for 8 weeks in two classes of 'Legal Environment of Business' (survey course for business students covering the types of legal issues that may arise in the course of operating a business and their implications as to both employees and clients);

(e)   As a member of the SC Bar Speaker's Bureau I have spoken to classes on such general topics as the law as a profession."

Ms. Neese reported that she has published the following:
"Sanders, Neese, & Nichols, Trial Handbook for South Carolina Lawyers (Lawyers Coop. 1994)."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Ms. Neese did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Neese did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Neese has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Neese was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Neese reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Ms. Neese appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Ms. Neese appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Neese was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1981.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1981-1983: S.C. Supreme Court, Staff Attorney, Clyde N. Davis, Supervisor;
1983-1985: S.C. Court of Appeals, Law Clerk to Chief Judge Alexander M.
Sanders, Jr.;
1985-1987: McKay & Guerard, of Columbia and Charleston, associate, civil litigation.

The firm focused on corporate litigation, although I did handle a small number of personal injury and domestic cases. The practice was in both state and federal courts, and my work included such things as drafting and filing pleadings, motions, discovery requests and responses, conducting on-site inspections and witness interviews, attending depositions, and litigating some cases as sole counsel;
1987-1988: S.C. Court of Appeals, Law Clerk to Chief Judge Alexander M. Sanders, Jr.
I served for three months while he was awaiting a new law clerk;
1988-1989: S.C. Attorney General's Office, Assistant Attorney General.

I assisted the lead attorneys in filing the claim on behalf of the State of South Carolina against members of the asbestos industry for damages related to the presence of the product in state-owned buildings, including the need for abatement or containment. The work entailed: assisting with the development of protocol and overall strategy of the case; preparing pleadings, motions, discovery requests and responses; attending various hearings, depositions, on-site meetings, and on-site air and product samplings; coordinating and reviewing the work of the surveyor contracted by the State; and traveling to various sites to inspect buildings and review documents such as original building plans and contracts;
1989-1989: South Carolina State College, substitute adjunct professor for 8 weeks.

I taught two classes of 'Legal Environment of Business' to undergraduate students;
1990-1992: S.C. Court of Appeals, Law Clerk to Chief Judge Alexander M. Sanders, Jr.;
1992-1993: College of Charleston, Special Assistant and Assistant General Counsel.

I served as a special assistant to the President, Alexander M. Sanders, Jr., and provided legal assistance that included research, writing, and opinions on special issues and projects as they arose;
1993-1995: Editor, South Carolina Lawyer (gratis position).

I served as editor of the magazine published by the S.C. Bar, following service on the Editorial Board. I coordinated upcoming issues with Bar staff and members of the Board, both as to the selection of articles and the selection of illustrations and graphics. I also proofread each issue and was involved in the solicitation of articles;
1996-2006: Child Support Enforcement Division, SCDSS, State Attorney.

I represent the State of South Carolina as assignee of child support enforcement rights of custodians in cases arising under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. I am assigned to the counties of Lexington and Edgefield and, at various times, have handled the additional caseloads of Bamberg, Chester, Greenwood, Lancaster, McCormick, Manning, and York counties. I have also covered court dates in such counties as Aiken, Richland, Saluda, Spartanburg, and Union, as needed."

Ms. Neese further reported:

"My answer to No. 27 details my pre-law experience as a Child Protective Service Worker in the area of abuse and neglect investigations. In that position, I also dealt with cases involving issues of custody, adoption, and termination of parental rights. During my time in private practice, I handled a small number of domestic cases that involved divorce, custody, and equitable division, but it did not constitute a large percentage of my work. My current area of practice, establishment and enforcement of child support orders for the State, although not listed in this question, is one of the public service/government attorney positions in the family court area. (Others include attorneys with both county DSS and the DSS Office of General Counsel and attorneys in county solicitors' offices.) These positions, by their very nature, limit the area of practice.

During the past ten years as a State Attorney with the Child Support Enforcement Division, I have had the responsibility of reviewing the files of as many as five child support specialists at a given time. My current caseload is over 6500 cases (in various stages of the IV-D process), and I handle all aspects of litigation: pleadings, discovery, motions, briefs, orders, Rules to Show Cause, and negotiation and settlement of cases. I usually have the entire docket for the day when scheduled for court, and know firsthand the importance of keeping the docket moving and the efficient use of court time and personnel.
Title IV-D cases address the establishment of paternity, the setting of child support pursuant to S.C. Child Support Guidelines, medical insurance coverage for children, and the enforcement of orders establishing these obligations and the obligation of alimony. In my current position, I do not operate in a vacuum, in that I oversee enforcement not only of orders obtained by our Division, but of private orders as well. Enforcement tools on any given case can include Rules to Show Cause, bench warrants, wage withholding, locate services, liens, revocation of business, professional, and driver's licenses, holds on passports, financial institution data matches, tax intercepts, and federal referrals. I work with the assigned clerks' staff regarding enforcement and maintenance of accounts and records. In addition, a large portion of my time is spent dealing with other states that initiate requests pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, both to establish S.C. orders and to register and confirm their orders. I also monitor outgoing UFISA requests for enforcement, establishment, or registration.

I have 6-7 years of service at the appellate level, both at the S.C. Supreme Court and the S.C. Court of Appeals, reviewing transcripts in all the designated areas of practice in family court, researching issues, and drafting proposed opinions. I believe the depth and breadth of that experience, given the large number of domestic cases reviewed, is excellent preparation for the family court bench. The skills developed there have proven invaluable to me throughout my career and would certainly serve me well in the position I am now seeking.
The portion of my career spent in civil litigation gave me general trial experience that provides a good foundation in the family court arena. Those years, coupled with my time as a Child Protective Service Worker, my appellate experience, my domestic work in private practice, and the past ten years of exclusive practice in family court, combine to give me a broad background suited for the family court bench. They have certainly given me exposure to and a comfort level with people from all walks of life."

Ms. Neese reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   None. (I have attended several hearings in U.S. District Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Court where the Division was represented by former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eric Ruschky, and bankruptcy attorney, George Cauthen.);

(b)   State:     I appear in family court on the days each month regularly assigned for the Child Support Division. In Edgefield County, I usually have the docket for one-half day of court a month. In Lexington County, I usually have the entire docket on two full days each month and other special hearings as needed. In addition, I have been assigned various other counties at times in addition to this caseload and have substituted for other attorneys on an 'as needed' basis."

Ms. Neese reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       0%;

(b)   Criminal:     0%;

(c)   Domestic:   100%."

Ms. Neese reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       0%;

(b)   Non-jury:   100%."

Ms. Neese provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Neese's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   SCDSS v. Oliver W. Johnson III, 95-DR-32-1345 & 97-DR-32-2443.

One of the important issues litigated in this ongoing, multi-state case was the interplay of family court and bankruptcy court. After Father was found in contempt for nonpayment, sentenced, and allowed to purge with certain lump sum payments, he failed to comply and only then filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Once Father was arrested, his bankruptcy attorney argued the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. 362 operated to discharge Father from jail. The family court judge released Father based upon the Division's pending motion in bankruptcy court for relief from the automatic stay. The bankruptcy judge initially declined to rule on the issue because Father had been released, but went on to give his opinion on the record that Father could have been retained in jail based upon the pre-petition finding of contempt and sentence. Following this case and similar efforts in Charleston, the rash of bankruptcy filings by those incarcerated for nonpayment of child support declined drastically;

(b)   SCDSS v. Clifford S. Bombard, 88-DR-32-1669 & 97-DR-32-1713.

In this multi-state case, the SC family court eventually took continuing exclusive jurisdiction. The most important issue litigated was my effort to extend child support for the younger child based upon S.C. Code Sec. 20-7-420(17) (physical and mental disabilities and special circumstances). Even though the child was receiving Supplemental Security Income and was diagnosed with multiple disabilities, Father took the untenable position that she could support herself. With the use of the business records exception and Sec. 20-7-1100 as to admission of school records and the Individual Educational Program for the child, together with judicial notice of the SSI determination, the court was persuaded to grant the Division's request to extend child support. This case stands as an example of how systems in place can be used properly to the benefit of children with special needs, and how UIFSA provides a method for placing necessary information before the court without requiring the presence of the out-of-state Mother and child. The end result was that a child who functions on a kindergarten or first-grade level and who has traumatic brain injury, scoliosis, vocal chord damage, and a myriad of medical problems is not relegated to $300 monthly SSI;

(c)   SCDSS v. William Roy Vaughn, 83-DR-24-0530.

My involvement with this case began when Father appeared for a Rule to Show Cause for nonpayment of his child support obligation. His attorney informed the court that a private child support collection agency in TX had diverted payments from the employer by use of the name 'Child Support Enforcement' and an 'Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support' which appeared to be from the Greenwood County Clerk's Office. Following resolution of the Rule, a hearing for sanctions against the company was scheduled, and we joined together in requesting relief. The judge ruled, among other things, that the company was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in SC, interfered with and willfully obstructed the court's order under the guise of a state or federal child support enforcement authority, had no authority to act on behalf of the custodian in light of her prior assignment to SCDSS, and had to pay Father's attorney's fees and reimburse the custodian the 34% the company retained as its fee. The ability of out-of-state for-profit companies to mislead both employers and individual obligors in an effort to divert payments from the court system, without notice to the court, clerk, or Division, can have catastrophic results;

(d)   SCDSS v. Anthony Gallagher, 98-DR-32-2771 & 2001-32-0554.

Once the SC family court took continuing exclusive jurisdiction of this multi-state case and denied Father's reduction request, he left SC and continued to fail to pay. I requested a federal referral that eventually brought Father to SC, and he was served with a family court bench warrant. Following discussions between the Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and Mother, she opted for state remedies in family court, and the federal referral was dropped. Father received a sentence under the family court bench warrant (as opposed to probation in federal court) and, upon release, began making regular payments toward both the ongoing support and the arrearage. The Division remains actively involved in this case to collect the remaining arrearage owed Mother, who now resides in VA. The case is a good example of how a close working relationship with an active U.S. Attorney's Office can give custodial parents additional enforcement options and lead to collection of monies which otherwise would never have been paid;

(e)   SCDSS v. Jeffrey Vietz, 96-DR-32-0009 & 2001-DR-32-2587.

A SC divorce decree set child support and medical coverage and expenses in this case, but Father evaded enforcement by relocating to GA and then to ND. Mother's private attorney was able to obtain a default order setting the large arrearage owed on the case and an additional arrears payment, and the Division sent a UIFSA packet to ND to have the order registered in that state. I dealt on a continual basis with my counterpart in ND regarding enforcement, with very little success. Over approximately one year, the ND courts did little other than order Father to pay two $1,000 payments toward the $40,000 arrearage because he claimed to be a full-time student living on federal grants. Father retained SC counsel and filed an action for reduction of his ongoing obligation, wherein we litigated his voluntary unemployment or under-employment. Although Father's alleged lack of income apparently carried weight with the ND courts and obstructed enforcement there, SC law had developed in this area. The law, the facts, and persuasive equity arguments led to the denial of any reduction in his obligation. (Father was served with a family court bench warrant while in SC, served his sentence, settled on the amounts owed for private attorney's fees and unreimbursed medicals, returned to ND, and we are once again seeking enforcement there.)."

Ms. Neese has personally handled the following civil appeal: "South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Donny Ray Allen, Unpublished Opinion No. 99-UP-140 (Ct. App. 1999)."

Ms. Neese has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Neese's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Neese to be "a very qualified and very highly regarded candidate who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Ms. Neese is not married. She does not have any children.

Ms. Neese reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar;

(b)   S.C. Bar Speaker's Bureau;

(c)   S.C. Bar Children's Committee;

Juvenile Justice Subcommittee;

(d)   S.C. Bar Law-Related Education Committee;

Middle School Mock Trial Subcommittee;

High School Mock Trial Subcommittee;

(e)   Lexington County Bar Association;

(f)   Edgefield County Bar Association;

(g)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association."

Ms. Neese provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   The Episcopal Church of the Ridge: Grace of Ridge Spring; Trinity of Edgefield; Our Saviour of Trenton;

(b)   The Ridge Heritage Association;

(c)   S.C. State Museum;

(d)   Columbia Museum of Art;

(e)   Friends of History, USC Foundation;

(f)   State Archives;

(g)   Walter Edgar Lecture Series, 'South Carolina's Past Comes Alive';

(h)   Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Additional Community Involvement (prior to this period):
When I lived on 'The Avenues' in Cayce (mid and late 1980's), I was active in the neighborhood association and served as its president one year.

In the 1990's, I was a member of St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Orangeburg, where I served as a Sunday School teacher, a member and president of the church choir, a member of the Alter Guild, a member, vice-president, and president of the United Methodist Women, vice-chair of the Council on Ministries, a member of the Administrative Board, chair of the stewardship campaign, and a volunteer in the church office. I was also a member of the community choir and volunteered at the local Arts Center. I was co-chair, vice-president, and president of several social clubs.

Recognition Not Listed Elsewhere:

(a)   I received the Am Jur Award in constitutional law while in law school.

(b)   I was very active in the Young Lawyers Division of the S.C. Bar after graduation from law school and served on several committees. I chaired the Division's committee that instituted our first 'Law School for Non-Lawyers' which was held at the USC School of Law. I was a recipient of the 1987-1988 S.C. Young Lawyer of the Year Award."

Ms. Neese additionally provided:

"I believe that I have always been an organized and productive person in whatever position I have held over the past 25 years. Both my personal and professional backgrounds have instilled a work ethic that places a priority on the quantity of work I can handle without sacrificing quality and attention to detail. It has been my good fortune to have close relationships with very goal-oriented and driven people who have set good examples of balancing demands and setting priorities in their lives. I am a great believer in punctuality and its importance, not only to productivity, but also as a clear indication of professionalism and courtesy to others. My goal is to complete tasks as accurately as possible and, when errors are made and discovered, acknowledge them and correct them as quickly as time allows. My varied background has honed my reasoning skills and enhanced my ability to identify the underlying issues and possible resolutions in cases. My desire to obtain just and fair results has deepened over the years, as has my respect and appreciation for the judicial system. I believe that I have the requisite degree of intelligence and common sense to address the facts and apply the law in the variety of cases that would come before me."

The Commission commented on Ms. Neese's diverse legal background in the public sector including her current employment with the S.C. Department of Social Services in which she very capably handles a tremendous caseload. They also noted that Ms. Neese performed extremely well on the Commission's practice and procedure test. The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court.

Robert E. Newton
Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Newton meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Mr. Newton was born in 1964. He is 42 years old and a resident of Saluda County, South Carolina. Mr. Newton provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Newton.

Mr. Newton demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Newton reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Newton testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Newton testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Newton described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar       12/2/05;

(b)   Hot Tips from the Coolest Family Court Practitioners   9/23/05;

(c)   Electronic Court Filing Training - U.S. District Court   1/25/05;

(d)   How not to Commit Malpractice/Attorney's Oath   12/8/04;

(e)   How to Manage Work             10/8/04;

(f)   Hot Tips from the Coolest Family Court Practitioners   9/24/04;

(g)   Overview of Title IV-D Child Support         8/17/04;

(h)   Torts                   10/1/03;

(I   )   HIPPA Lessons               7/1/03;

(j)     Representing Defendants on PCR         5/9/03;

(k)   Family Law                 2/26/03;

(l)     Learning from Bad Examples - Ethics         12/11/02;

(m)   Auto Torts                 12/6/02;

(n)   SCTLA Convention               8/1/02;

(o)   Ethics                 12/12/01;

(p)   Auto Torts                 11/30/01;

(q)   Graduate School for DUI Defense         10/19/01."

Mr. Newton reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Mr. Newton reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Newton did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Newton did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Newton has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Newton was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Newton reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Newton appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Newton appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Newton was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1989.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   1988 until 1992 - Coleman, Sawyer, Breibart, & McCauley.

I began working as a law clerk during law school for this firm and joined as an associate after graduation. I practiced with Billy Coleman, C. David Sawyer, Richard J. Breibart and John J. McCauley. Our firm had offices in Saluda, SC and Lexington, SC. This was a litigation intensive firm where my practice was devoted to approximately 75% domestic / family court matters (including all aspects of divorce, child custody, visitation, child support, alimony, equitable division) 20% civil litigation (including personal injury), and 5% criminal defense (including juvenile matters);

(b)   1992 until 2003 - Breibart & McCauley, P.A. (subsequently Breibart, McCauley & Newton, P.A.).

The previously referenced firmed dissolved it's association when C. David Sawyer was elected to the Family Court in 1992. I continued my association with Richard Breibart and John McCauley until our firm dissolved it's association in December of 2003. My practice remained essentially as described above divided between domestic / family court (approximately 75%), civil litigation (20%), and criminal defense (5%);

(c)   January 2004 through the present time - The Dooley Law Firm, P.A.

My current firm is comprised of 4 other attorneys: Albert ("Bert") J. Dooley, Jr., David Hipp, James O. Spence, and Sandra Dooley Parker. Albert ("AJ") J. Dooley, Sr. remains Of Counsel to the firm. My practice has remained devoted to the areas as described above."

Mr. Newton further reported:

"During my legal career my practice has had a primary emphasis on family court matters. I have represented husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, grandparents, adoptive parents and children in the family court. I have represented juveniles charged with crimes and defendants in abuse and neglect cases, both retained and court appointed. I would respectfully submit that there is probably not a type of case that could arise in the family court that I have not had some experience with during my career.

I have handled divorces based on each of the statutory grounds and have tried cases involving all five (5) grounds for divorce in contested matters. I have represented individuals in cases involving equitable division with marital estates ranging from a negative net worth (marital debts) to cases in which the marital estate exceeded one million dollars. I have represented the unemployed and the indigent as well as the entrepreneur and the professional.
I have litigated custody cases on behalf of the father and the mother. I have tried custody cases, done the discovery necessary for trial (to include depositions, interrogatories, etc.), met with and cross examined guardian ad litems and child psychologists, and prepared witnesses for both direct and cross examination. I have also tried cases involving visitation issues and all ancillary custody related issues. I have handled these cases in the context of divorces and in post divorce changed circumstance actions.

I have represented clients in abuse and neglect cases as both court appointed counsel and retained counsel. I have represented the alleged perpetrator and the other parent. I have also been guardian ad litem in abuse and neglect cases. I have represented foster parents in actions to intervene in abuse and neglect cases seeking termination of parental rights and, ultimately, adoption.

I have represented juvenile defendants on matters ranging from drug possession to criminal sexual conduct involving the solicitor's office and the Department of Juvenile Justice.

I believe I have a well rounded background of first hand case experience for all matters that routinely arise in the family court."

Mr. Newton reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   None;

(b)   State:     Probably averaged 5 times per month assuming the question means actual physical appearance and not an 'appearance' through filings and notices of appearance."

Mr. Newton reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       20%;

(b)   Criminal:     5%;

(c)   Domestic:   75%."

Mr. Newton reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       2%;

(b)   Non-jury:   98%."

Mr. Newton provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Newton's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   The case of State v. Martin, 352 S.C. 32, 572 S.E. 2d 287 (2002) set forth below was a very significant case for me. I represented Ms. Martin from the trial level to the Court of Appeals and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court on a Writ of Certiorari where we ultimately prevailed. While the underlying facts of this case were tragic and extremely unfortunate, the issues it presented regarding the magistrate court's handling of tickets and the judge's signature were unique. This case presented me an opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court on issues relating to Due Process and proper judicial procedure;

(b)   I have within the past two years represented two different couples who were foster parents in actions to intervene as necessary parties in abuse and neglect cases. My clients in both cases wanted to be involved in the judicial process involving their foster children and were seeking to initiate actions to terminate the parental rights of the children's biological parents and for adoption. We tried both of these cases and prevailed. The foster parents are now the adoptive parents of children that were removed from abusive and/or neglectful situations. The case was 'significant'   because of the personal satisfaction I received from helping these people help these children;

(c)   In 1997 I was co-counsel with Attorney Charles Williams in a wreck case involving a collision of two tractor/trailers in the center of the roadway in Orangeburg County. Our client, the driver of one of the tractor/trailers was significantly injured requiring many surgeries and an extended hospitalization. The case involved testimony of various experts, including experts in accident reconstruction and medical doctors. This case provided me an opportunity to work on a complex personal injury matter and try the case before a jury with a seasoned trial attorney. The offers prior to trial had been nominal and the matter settled on the third day of trial for $750,000.00 giving our client some much needed financial help;

(d)   Early in my career I represented a father in a bitter custody case. The mother was represented by Attorney Harvey Golden. Mr. Golden was an extremely experienced family law attorney with a statewide reputation. This case is significant to me because of the many lessons I learned from litigating a case against such a tenacious litigator. The case lasted for approximately two years and involved very serious allegations. Ultimately my client was sued by the Department of Social Services in an abuse action during the private action. The Department ultimately dismissed their action and the custody case settled with my client receiving primary custody of the children after the abuse allegations were recanted and the parties had undergone psychological evaluations;

(e)   I recently litigated the issue of jurisdiction of the family court in South Carolina to assume jurisdiction of a matter that was previously pending in Arkansas. The case was significant in that it involved complex issues of our court's authority pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to assume jurisdiction of a matter that was pending in Arkansas. I was required to brief and argue the case before the trial court. Ultimately the court ruled in favor of my client and dismissed the matter. However, the Arkansas court then determined on various grounds, including inconvenient forum, to transfer jurisdiction. Thereafter, we were able to settle the case."

The following is Mr. Newton's account of a civil appeal he has personally handled:

"Aviation Associates and Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc.; Cobra Drilling Co. Inc.; and Cobra Drilling, Inc., as the successor corporation of the merger of the other named defendants, 303 S.C. 502, 402 S.E.2d 177(1991)."

The following is Mr. Newton's account of the criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   State v. Martin, 352 S.C. 32, 572 S.E.2d 287 (2002);

(b)   State v. Martin, 341 S.C. 480, 534 S.E.2d 292 (Ct. App. 2000)."

Mr. Newton reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"In 1992 I ran unsuccessfully for the South Carolina House of Representatives, House District 39 (Saluda and Lexington Counties). I also ran unsuccessfully for the Lexington School District One School Board in 2002."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Newton's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Newton to be "a very highly qualified and very highly regarded candidate for the position of Family Court Judge, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Mr. Newton is married to Caroline Steppe Newton. He has one child.

Mr. Newton reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Lexington County Bar Association - currently serve as President for 2006;

(c)   American Trial Lawyers Association;

(d)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association - served on the Board of Governors as the 11th Judicial Circuit Representative for 2000 - 2003."

Mr. Newton provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Lexington School District One Citizens Putting Children First Committee. I co-chaired the speakers bureau regarding District Bond Referendum;

(b)   Lexington Middle School Improvement Council. I currently serve as chairman;

(c)   Lexington Elementary School Improvement Council. I served as chairman for 2001-2002;

(d)   Town of Lexington Citizens Advisory Committee;

(e)   Lexington School District One Parent Advisory Committee;

(f)   Member of the American Motorcyclist Association;

(g)   Member of the Harley Owners Group;

(h)   Member of the BMW Motorcycle Owners Association."

Mr. Newton additionally provided:

"I sincerely believe that I have much to offer for this position. My experience as a practicing attorney primarily in the family court arena has prepared me well. I also believe my experience as a husband of over 20 years and as a father for 11 years will assist me in dealing with the unique area of family law. I believe all these experiences give me a necessary perspective, temperament, and demeanor well suited for this position.

** I am aware of the requirements for a family court judge set forth in S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-7-1370(A) (1976) and I am in compliance with all of those requirements. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-7-1410 (1976), Seat 2 of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit is unique in that it requires that 'at least one family court judge must be a resident of one of the counties which does not have the largest population in the circuit' (emphasis added). I am currently a resident of Lexington County. Obviously, I am also not a family court judge at this time. However, I own a home in Saluda County and have for approximately 16 years. I was a resident of Saluda County from 1986 until 1995 living exclusively in our home in Saluda. Since 1995, we have utilized the Saluda home as our second home. I practiced law in Saluda with the firm of Coleman, Sawyer, Breibart, and McCauley from 1989 until 1992. I have long-standing ties to Saluda County, including remaining a taxpayer currently. However, as of the filing of my application, my legal residence is not Saluda County and I do not intend to attempt to create the appearance of such merely for my application. If I am fortunate enough to be one of those candidates nominated by this Commission which would make me eligible to be elected as a family court judge, it would be my intention to comply with the statute by declaring my residence as my Saluda County home. It would be my intention to become a qualified elector of Saluda County consistent with the statutory requirements prior to the election. I wanted to set these facts forth for the Commission out of an abundance of caution, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and to be as candid as possible in this process."

Mr. Newton further provided:

"It is my understanding that there was an anonymous complaint made regarding my candidacy which raised allegations that I am not being candid regarding the issue of residency. I fully explained my intention regarding my residency in our meeting. As you know, I first called the issue of my residence to the attention of the Commission in great detail when I filed my initial package of materials related to my candidacy. There has not been nor is there any attempt to be anything but candid regarding this matter. In fact, to be sure the record is absolutely complete I would request that you allow this letter to serve as a supplement to my materials submitted thus far. While this may not be strictly necessary for the process, it is necessary for me personally to be certain that my integrity remains unquestioned.

As has been explained previously, I have long-standing ties to Saluda County. My wife and I lived there exclusively the first nine years of our marriage. I practiced law in Saluda for many years and was involved in local politics. We have owned a home there since 1989. This is not merely a house I am renting for purposes of creating the 'appearance' of residence. We own this property and have for 17 years. We will own this home after this judicial position is filled regardless of the outcome. It has always been our intent to return to our Saluda County home on Lake Murray as our only residence. My child's care and education and changes in my career path made living primarily in Lexington more convenient and the better choice for my family temporarily, but our intent has always been to return upon our daughter's graduation regardless of any attempt to be a family court judge. In the meantime, we have maintained both residences. They are both fully furnished, complete homes.

Since our meeting I have changed my mailing address to my Saluda County home [in] Batesburg, SC. I have transferred my driver's license to that address. As you recall, I had not applied to change my voter registration ... at the time of our meeting because I wanted to vote in the November elections. We intend to designate the Saluda home as our primary residence for tax purposes, as well. While I believe all legal indicia of residence are now satisfied, I feel it is important to outline my intent in greater detail on the record to avoid any question.

To put this matter in a better perspective I should point out that I have lived and/or practiced in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for my entire professional life. My home in Lexington County and my home in Saluda County are approximately 22 miles apart (about a 25 -30 minute drive). As I told you in our meeting, if I am successful in my pursuit of this seat I still intend to maintain both homes. My wife works full time from our home in Lexington in a 'flex' work arrangement with her employer and she will continue to do so. Our intent would also be that our daughter will continue to attend school in Lexington County.

I fully expect that my time will be spent in both of my homes depending in great part on where I will be holding court if I am successful. This is no different than what my family has done for the past eleven years - maintained two homes. The only difference is that Saluda will be our primary residence again. I am fortunate enough to have both locations that I can utilize depending on my assignments. However, my legal residence will be Saluda County.

Therefore, as you can see, there is no question that I will have done what is necessary to comply with the statute as of the date of the election. I am a qualified elector of Saluda County. I would submit that based on my long-standing ties to Saluda County this is more than a mere 'technical' compliance. In spite of this compliance with the statutory requirement, I wanted to go further and fully explain my intentions to put to rest any questions regarding my integrity or the allegation that I am being surreptitious. Even though this issue was raised anonymously, in this context I felt it extremely important to relate this information because I feel it is important for there to be no questions regarding a judge's integrity. What I have described in this letter is the same thing I have explained to anyone that has asked me about this issue, including you. I suspect that the party complaining did not realize that I have told everyone the same thing and thought they were divulging something 'new' and unknown by others.

I sincerely believe I am well qualified for this position and would be a judge that will make the people of South Carolina and the Eleventh Judicial Circuit proud. I realize my explanation may call more attention to this issue than it deserved, but since my honesty and integrity were questioned I felt it was important."

The Commission noted Mr. Newton's outstanding reputation in the community he serves and his many years of experience as an attorney practicing family law. They commented that his quick legal mind would equip him well for the Family Court bench. The Commission found Mr. Newton qualified and nominated him to the Family Court.

Richard W. Chewning III
Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Chewning meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Chewning was born in 1942. He is 64 years old and a resident of Lexington, South Carolina. Judge Chewning provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1972.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Chewning.

Staff received an affidavit opposing Judge Chewning's re-election from Cynthia Johnson. Ms. Johnson alleges that on October 5, 2006, she appeared before Judge Chewning for a temporary support hearing. She contends that she presented several documents for Judge Chewning to review prior to making a ruling regarding support. She complains that Judge Chewning did not read the documents, did not appear to be listening to her attorney's arguments, flipped through papers during the hearing, did not make eye contact with the people in the courtroom, and did not give her case the attention it deserved. Judge Chewning responded before the Commission that he always gives cases his undivided attention, but may often be wrongly interpreted as not paying attention. He testified that he may read documents related to the case as the attorneys are making their arguments, or he may listen to the arguments and read the related documents before issuing a final order. In this case, Judge Chewning testified that he reviewed the documents as the attorneys were referring to the documents and made his ruling based on the evidence and information that were presented during the hearing. Judge Chewning claimed he did listen to the arguments, did review the documents, and ruled the way the law requires. The Commission concluded that Ms. Johnson's complaint did not call into question Judge Chewning's fitness to serve on the Family Court.

Judge Chewning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Chewning reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Chewning testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Chewning testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Chewning to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions fell below the expectations generally met by an applicant.

Judge Chewning described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   2006 Circuit Court Law Clerk           8/24/2006;

(b)   2006 New Appellate Law Clerks/Staff Attorneys' Seminar 8/24/2006;

(c)   2006 Annual Judicial Conference     8/23/2006;

(d)   Family Law Section               1/21/2005;

(e)   2005 Family Court Judges'           4/27/2005;

(f)     2005 Annual Judicial Conference     8/24/2005;

(g)   SC Family Court Bench             12/2/2005;

(h)   Family Court Judges Conference     4/28/2004;

(i)     Family Law Section Meeting         1/23/2004;

(j)     Family Court Judges Conference     4/30/2003;

(k)   Family Law Part I                 1/24/2003;

(l)     Judicial Conference                 8/21/2003;

(m)   Family Court Judges Conference     5/01/2002;

(n)   Family Law Section II-Taxes; The     1/25/2002;

(o)   2002 Annual Convention             8/01/2002;

(p)   Judicial Conference                 8/22/2002;

(q)   Family Law Section               1/26/2001;

(r)     2001 Family Court Judges           5/03/2001;

(s)   Judicial Conference                 8/23/2001;

(t)     Family Law Section               1/21/2000;

(u)   Annual Judicial Conference         8/16/2000;

(v)   Family Court Judges Conference     5/03/2000;

(w)   2000 SCTLA Convention           8/03/2000."

Judge Chewning reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Judge Chewning reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Chewning did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Chewning did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Chewning has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Chewning was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

udge Chewning reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Chewning appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Chewning appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Chewning was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"Having clerked for a law firm in Columbia, SC while I was attending law school and upon graduation being offered a job, I remained there for approximately nine (9) months (Kennedy and Price). During this almost three (3) year period of time I became well trained in real estate work including abstracting titles, setting up subdivisions for developer, closing loans and etc. I also handled collections, (set up a firm procedure and oversaw it with secretarial help), foreclosures, wills, estates, help investigate and set up files regarding bodily injury, and assisted in some defense work and adoptions. My first exposure to the practice of law was basically a general one.

In 1973, I opened my own practice of law in West Columbia, SC (my home) and began a general practice of law primarily in Richland and Lexington Counties. It was definitely a general practice which involved criminal, wills, estates, real estate, civil cases (primarily accident claims), defense of individuals being sued, family court (divorces, adoptions, and serving as guardian ad litem), bankruptcy, foreclosures, workmen compensation, and work in magistrate court and city traffic court.

In 1977, Nikki G. Setzler, E. Danny Scott and I joined our three (3) solo practices into the firm of Setzler, Chewning, and Scott, P.A. We grew from three (3) attorneys and two (2) secretaries, to six (6) attorneys, six (6) secretaries, full-time bookkeeper, law clerk and abstractor.

During the 70's, because Lexington County did not have a standing Master-in-Equity and this type work was steadily increasing, many attorneys agreed for me to serve as Special Referee. This particular area grew and for many years approximately 50% of my annual income came from serving as Special Referee. This primarily dealt with foreclosures but included many other actions such as property line disputes, complex corporate and business disputes.

1986 referred over 95 cases

1987 referred over 115 cases

1988 referred over 130 cases

1989 referred over 100 cases

These were the latest records I could find regarding cases referred to me as Special Referee immediately prior to Lexington County providing a full-time Master-in-Equity in July 1989.

Through the middle years of my practice, Special Referee work and foreclosure work were my primary sources of income. I continued doing real estate work, wills and domestic type work. Our firm gradually developed specialty areas in that Mr. Scott primarily handled the real estate and Mr. Setzler handled the civil litigation, with me doing the foreclosures, bank work and special referring.

Finally, the County of Lexington hired a full-time Master-in-Equity and I simply redirected my efforts in the other area of law.

During the past ten (10) or twelve (12) years, as the Family Courts began to utilize the Guardian Ad Litem (I had always had a special interest in children and worked in this area of Family Court since law school), I developed a sizable practice in this area and continue to do so.

It is difficult to arrive at exact dates since 1972 regarding areas of practice because of the time span. It is even more difficult because all of the areas of change were slow in developing and ending. An exception is the Special Referee work ceasing abruptly with the appointment of a standing Master-in-Equity.

I have always practiced a general practice of law. In the first years I could effectively cover many areas of law and many different courts in many different counties.

I have tried cases (limited number) in Federal Court in my early years of practice.

My main volume area throughout the years of practice was family court, guardian ad litem work, foreclosure work and special referee work.

I have also served as the Judge for the City of Cayce from December, 1976 to June, 1994, handling weekly traffic court, preliminary hearings, jury trials, execution of warrants and search warrants, bond hearings and the appeals from this court.

I was appointed by the Supreme Court to serve as the temporary Family Court Judge when County was without a sitting judge. I can not recall the date nor can I locate the Order issued by the Supreme Court. It was in the mid to late 70's and was only for a week or two. Several attorneys were appointed during the interim when we did not have a judge or had only one (1) sitting judge."

Judge Chewning reported he has held the following judicial offices:
"Served as Judge for the City of Cayce from December, 1976 to June, 1994:

Appointed by City Council.

Regular traffic court once a week every week.

Jury trials.

Execution of arrest warrants and search warrants.

Preliminary hearings.

Bond hearings;

Served as Special Family Court Judge in Lexington County by Order of the Supreme Court. Can not locate Order, was in the mid to late 70's for one (1) or two (2) week period of time;

Served as Special Referee (primarily in Lexington County-have heard cases from other counties at request of attorneys and court) from approximately 1977 to July 1989, referred by Circuit Court;

Served as Family Court Judge full-time from July 1, 1994 to present. Seat Number 3, Eleventh Judicial Circuit."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Chewning's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Chewning to be "a very highly qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Judge Chewning is married to Ruth Davis Chewning. He has two children.

Judge Chewning reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Richland County Bar 1972 - 1973;

(b)   Lexington County Bar 1973 - present;

(c)   President 1980;

(d)   Secretary/Treasurer for a number of years prior to 1980;

(e)   South Carolina Bar Association 1972 to present;

(f)     SC Supreme Court Committee for Discipline and Grievances 1985 - 1988;

(g)   House of Delegates 1990 - 1992;

(h)   Judicial Moderazation Committee 1981 - 1982;

(i)     American Bar Association 1972 to 1984;

(j)     Voluntarily served the SC Bar Pro Bono Program since 1988."

Judge Chewning provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Task Force - Fighting Back Lexington;

(b)   U.S.C. Gamecock Club;

(c)   U.S.C. Alumni Association;

(d)   Newberry College Alumni Association;

(e)   Shiloh United Methodist Church:

Sunday school teacher;

Church Choir Member;

Chairman of the Finance Committee;

Member of Administrative Council;

(f)     Volunteer Fireman with Hollow Creek Fire Department;

(g)   Lexington County Election Commission - Poll Manager (resigned July 1, 1994);

(h)   Lexington County Selective Service Board - Chairman 1982 to July 1, 1994."

The Commission commented on Judge Chewning's service to the state in various judicial positions and noted that he would ably continue to serve on the Family Court bench. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election as a Family Court Judge.

Mary E. Buchan
Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Buchan since her candidacy was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and the complaint that was received earlier was withdrawn because the complainant did not testify.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Buchan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the Family Court.

Judge Buchan was born in 1952. She is 54 years old and a resident of Marion, South Carolina. Judge Buchan provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Buchan.

Judge Buchan demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Buchan reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Buchan reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Buchan reported that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Buchan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Buchan described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Various seminars offered through SC Bar-CLE;

(b)   Scientific Evidence, University of Nevada at Reno, October, 2000."

Judge Buchan reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, Computers in the Courtroom, 1993 (I think);

(b)   Speaker, Horry County Bar Family Court Annual Seminar, 1993;

(c)   Judge, various state and one national High School Mock Trial competitions;

(d)   Speaker and co-panelist, various state and local Guardian ad Litem seminars;

(e)   Bridge the Gap, 1996, Handling Family Court Appointments;

(f)   Chief Judges Seminar, 1997, Scheduling Problems and Conflicts;

(g)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1998, Race and Gender Sensitive Issues;

(h)   SCTLA Annual Convention, co-panelist, 1998, Valuation of a Professional Practice;

(i)     South Carolina Bar Winter Meeting, 1998, co-panelist, Joint Custody Considerations;

(j)     Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1999, Post-Trial Motions in Juvenile Hearings;

(k)   Children's Law Office, CLE, 2000, Handling Court Appointments in Family Court;

(l)     Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 2000, general facilitator;

(m)   Tips From the Bench III, CLE, 2002, Ethics in Family Court;

(n)   2004 Guardian ad Litem Training, CLE, 3/05/04: Role of the Guardian at Trial;

(o)   2005 Guardian ad Litem Training, CLE, 3/18/05: Children's Issues in Family Court."

Judge Buchan reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her.

The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buchan has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Buchan was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Buchan reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Buchan appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Buchan appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Buchan was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"For a brief period after my graduation from law school, I continued to clerk for the Columbia law firm of Kennedy, Price, Kosko & Coffas. From my admission to the bar until March, 1982, I worked for Timothy G. Quinn in his Columbia office and managed his Marion office in a general practice. In March, 1982, Edward W. Whittington, Jr. and I formed Whittington & Buchan, Attorneys, which was a general practice."

Judge Buchan further reported: "Although I dealt primarily with domestic matters, I also handled civil, criminal, real estate, commercial and probate matters."

Judge Buchan reported that she has held the following judicial office:

"I was appointed and shortly thereafter elected as Family Court Judge, Seat 1, Twelfth Judicial Circuit in May, 1992; I have held that position since. Family Courts are of limited jurisdiction and handle matters of divorce, separate support and maintenance, support and property issues incidental to the marriage relationship, child custody and visitation, child support, paternity, adoptions, abuse and neglect of children and vulnerable adults, juveniles, minor abortions, name changes and domestic violence."

Judge Buchan provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Poston v. Poston, 331 SC 106, 502 SE2d 86 (1998);

(b)   Dixon v. Dixon, 336 SC 260, 519 SE2d 357 (Ct.App., 1999);

(c)   Eisenmann v. Eisenmann, This case remains one of my most significant because it remains the most tragic I have heard. Two professionals, who were both such wonderful individuals, were involved in a contested divorce and custody action after one of them was involved in a horrible automobile accident which left that party with significant residual difficulties. Family members became involved after a series of miscommunications, and the divorce action resulted. Both of the parties and their children suffered immeasurably;

(d)   Jane Doe and John Doe v. SCDSS, et. al., Because this was an adoption case, fictitious names are substituted for the Plaintiffs. The case is significant because the child being adopted had been the subject of numerous abuse and neglect hearings I was involved with. The child suffered such several physical disabilities and developmental delays that medical experts opined that she would not survive to see her first birthday. The love, faith and goodness of the Plaintiffs had truly miraculously transformed the child and the child's prognosis. This matter is significant because it was one of the few cases with a happy ending that I have had;

(e)   In the Interest of Jeremiah W., 361 SC 620, 606 SE2d 766 (2004)."

Judge Buchan reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"In my candidacy for the Court of Appeals, Seat 3 in 1999, I was found qualified but was not nominated. In 2000, I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat 6. Again, I was found qualified but was not nominated. As a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat 3 in 2003, I was found qualified and was nominated. I withdrew prior to the election because of my husband's medical difficulties. As a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat 1 in 2004, I was found qualified and was nominated. I withdrew prior to the election."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Buchan's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Buchan to be qualified for re-election and the Pee Dee Citizens Committee recommended Judge Buchan without reservation.

Judge Buchan is married to Ernest McCray Graham, Jr. She has one child and two step-children.

Judge Buchan reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(c)   SCWLA;

(d)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."

Judge Buchan provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
"Marion Presbyterian Church: former deacon and elder; Sunday School teacher; Endowment Committee."

Judge Buchan additionally provided:

"I have both the ability and the desire to continue in my job as a Family Court judge."

The Commission commented that they wished Judge Buchan all the best as she undergoes treatment for her medical illness and noted her outstanding judicial temperament on the Family Court bench. The Commission found Judge Buchan qualified and nominated Judge Buchan for election to the Family Court.

A. Eugene Morehead III
Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Morehead since his candidacy was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and the complaint that was received earlier was withdrawn because the complainant did not testify.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Morehead meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Morehead was born in 1946. He is 60 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Morehead provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Morehead.

Judge Morehead demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Morehead reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Morehead reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Morehead reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Morehead to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Morehead described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   August 23, 2006 - Annual Judicial Conference;

(b)   August 3, 2006 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention;

(c)   April 26, 2006 - Annual Family Court Judges Conference;

(d)   January 27, 2006 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention;

(e)   December 9, 2005 - Horry County Bar Association Family Court;

(f)   Seminar on Procedure and Substantive Law;

(g)   December 2, 2005 - South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference;

(h)   September 25, 2005 - Annual South Carolina Solicitor's Association Conference;

(i)     August 24, 2005 - Annual Judicial Conference;

(j)     August 4, 2005 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention;

(k)   July 12, 2005 - Drug Court Planning Initiative;

(l)     April 27, 2005 - Annual Family Court Judges Conference;

(m)   March 2, 2005 - Drug Court Planning Initiative;

(n)   January 21, 2005 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention;

(o)   December 10, 2004 - Seminar for Chief Administrative Family Court Judges;

(p)   December 8, 2004 - Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar on Procedure and Substantive Law;

(q)   December 3, 2004 - South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference;

(r)   August 19, 2004 - Annual Judicial Conference;

(s)   August 5, 2004 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention;

(t)     April 28, 2004 - Annual Family Court Judges Conference;

(u)   January 23, 2004 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention;

(v)   December 5, 2003 - South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference;

(w)   September 28, 2003 - Annual South Carolina Solicitor's Association Conference;

(x)   August 21, 2003 - Annual Judicial Conference;

(y)   August 7, 2003 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention;

(z)   April 30, 2003 - Annual Family Court Judges Conference;

(aa)   January 24, 2003 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention;

(bb)   December 6, 2002 - South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference;

(cc)   August 22, 2002 - Annual Judicial Conference;

(dd)   August 1, 2002 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention;

(ee)   May 1, 2002 - Annual Family Court Judges Conference;

(ff)   January 25, 2002 - Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention."

Judge Morehead reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   From 1976 until 1983, taught Business Law as an instructor at Francis Marion University;

(b)   In November, 1991, organized a Family Law Seminar for the South Carolina Bar which dealt with such issues as financial declarations, bankruptcy, judicial ethics, judicial temperament, properly handling criminal actions, abuse and neglect actions along with a legislative and case law update. Additionally served as moderator of the seminar;

(c)   In March, 1992, served on the seminar faculty for a Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminar discussing the topic of How to Properly Handle a Temporary Hearing;

(d)   In August, 1992, served as a guest lecturer at the National Child Support Enforcement Association's Convention in Orlando, Florida, and discussed issues with properly setting child support under newly structured guidelines and, more particularly, handling the deviations when dealing with multiple families, under employed parents, negotiated agreements and extraordinary expenses;

(e)   In August, 1994, spoke at the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention on How to Better Prepare Young Lawyers for Trial Litigation in Family Court;

(f)   In October, 1994, spoke at a 2-day seminar at the South Carolina Solicitor's Association Annual Conference which dealt with Family Court prosecutors handling detention and waiver hearings;

(g)   In May, 1995, served on the seminar faculty for the Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminar dealing with Child Abuse and Neglect Cases and presented a topic pertaining to effective advocacy, civility and professionalism - A View from the Bench;

(h)   In August, 1997, at the request of Court Administration, spoke at the Annual Judicial Conference on the Rules dealing with Alternative Dispute Resolution as they pertained to Family Court and also spoke to the Family Court Judges on how to prepare proper temporary orders;

(i)     n December, 1997, served on the seminar faculty for the Bar Association's Continuing Legal Education Seminar discussing Pet Peeves regarding Family Court Practitioners and Family Court Judges as collected by a survey from the Bench and Bar;

(j)     In May, 1998, spoke at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference on How to Properly Handle Pro Se Cases;

(k)   In May, 1999, spoke at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference on How to Properly Handle Pre-Trial Matters and Detention Hearings;

(l)     In May, 2000, organized the entire educational component of the Annual Family Court Judges Conference which dealt with a round table discussion of frequent problems that arise in Family Court and other interesting areas dealing with How to Properly Utilize Your Computer, Judicial Standards and Ethics, and a presentation from the Youth Law Center in Washington, DC, along with a Legislative Update;

(m)   In June, 2000, spoke at the South Carolina Annual Bar Convention dealing with Alternative Dispute Resolution - Mediation in Family Court;

(n)   In May, 2001, spoke at the Family Court Judges Conference on Pertinent Evidentiary Problems Family Court Judges Encounter;

(o)   In December, 2001, spoke at the Family Court Bench/Bar Conference sponsored by the South Carolina Bar Association dealing with Proper Etiquette and Manners in the Courtroom;

(p)   In May, 2002, was again asked to organize the entire educational component at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference which dealt with alimony, a Legislative Update, when to order psychological as compared to psychiatric examinations for juveniles, and how to properly deal with Solicitors in criminal cases;

(q)   In May, 2003, again organized the entire educational component at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference which dealt with custody, DSS Abuse and Neglect cases, sealing records, Guardian ad Litem statute, juveniles, Legislative Update, appellate court decisions and computer generated Family Court forms;

(r)   In September, 2003, spoke at the South Carolina Solicitor's Association's Annual Conference to all of the prosecutors who come into Family Court;

(s)   In April, 2004, again asked to organize the entire educational component at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference which dealt with juvenile justice and the restorative justice program, how to handle complicated financial issues in Family Court, Legislative Update and typical problems a Family Court Judge deals with in the courtroom on a daily basis;

(t)     In April, 2005, again asked to organize the entire educational component at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference which dealt with appellate court decisions, handling pre-trial discovery, changing the default rules and the administrative strike rule, how to better handle pro se litigants, a Legislative Update dealing with the statewide Guardian ad Litem program, and tips on safety and security in the courtroom;

(u)   In September, 2005, spoke at the South Carolina Solicitor's Association's Annual Conference on a specific topic of waiver hearings and had a roundtable discussion with the juvenile prosecutors;

(v)   In December, 2005, served on the seminar faculty for the Bar Association's Continuing Legal Education Seminar speaking specifically on proper enforcement of Court orders;

(w)   In April, 2006, again asked to organize the entire educational component at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference which dealt with how to properly work with pro se litigants, the Guardian ad Litem statute, juvenile issues, how to better handle temporary hearings, Abuse and Neglect cases, adoptions, the benefits of mediation, the wrong and right wording for Domestic Abuse orders, a Legislative Update and better awareness of the methamphetamine problem."

Judge Morehead reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Morehead did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Morehead did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Morehead has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Morehead was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Morehead reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "unknown."

Judge Morehead reported the following military service:
"Spent two years on active duty as an officer in the United States Army from June, 1968, through May, 1970, obtaining the rank of First Lieutenant. After active duty, spent four years in the Standby Reserve and received an Honorable Discharge on June 20, 1974."

Judge Morehead provided that he has held the following public office:
"Previously served as a Commissioner of Elections for the City of Florence. Was appointed in November, 1983, but resigned in 1985 after being elected Family Court Judge. Filing not required."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Morehead appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Morehead appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Morehead was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Joined the Law Firm of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough in Columbia, South Carolina, as an Associate in 1973 and remained there for three years practicing in all courts in this state with a general focus on defense litigation surrounding personal and property injuries, products liability and Worker's Compensation.
In 1976 moved to Florence, South Carolina, and became a Partner in the Law Firm of Swearingen and Morehead, remaining there until June, 1985. Had a general practice doing both plaintiff's and defense litigation in state Civil Court, Federal Court and Family Court.
Was elected a Family Court Judge for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit on April 10, 1985, and began serving on June 19, 1985. Served continuously until Chief Justice Ernest Finney appointed me to serve on the Court of Appeals after Chief Judge William Howell retired until his successor was elected. Served from January, 2000, until July 1, 2000, and then returned to the Family Court Bench. Also in March, 2003, due to the illness of Judge Carol Connor, Chief Justice Jean Toal appointed me to serve on the Court of Appeals for a one-month term."

Judge Morehead reported he has held the following judicial office:
"Elected Family Court Judge for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2, on April 10, 1985, and began holding Court on June 19, 1985. Have served continuously since that date.

Upon the retirement of Chief Judge William Howell from the Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Ernest Finney appointed me to serve on the Court of Appeals from January 2000 through June 2000. Also in March, 2003, due to the illness of Judge Carol Connor, Chief Justice Jean Toal appointed me to serve on the Court of Appeals for a one-month term."

Judge Morehead provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Elizabeth N. Powell v. Jackson N. Powell

The primary issues in the case surrounded alimony, equitable distribution and attorney fees. While it is an unpublished Opinion from the Court of Appeals handed down in January, 2006, it is the first time since I have been on the Bench that the Appellate Court used my order in its entirety as its decision. A copy of the Opinion is attached;

(b)   Sandra Jean Prevatte v. Harry Prevatte

One of the leading cases dealing with Common Law Marriages in the removal of an impediment to establish the marriage. Additionally, there was an issue surrounding circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish adultery. The Appellate Opinion affirming my order was written by Chief Judge Alex Sanders and gave me much strength over the years especially in raising my children in that I kept page 4 of his Opinion on our refrigerator where he concluded that I 'was not born yesterday.' The case was affirmed at 297 SC 345, 377 SE2d 114 (S.C. App., 1989). A copy of the decree and the appellate decision is attached;

(c)   Kenneth W. Thornton, Jr. v. Pamela P. Thornton

Enclosed is a copy of the Final Decree which encompassed numerous complicated issues and the unpublished Appellate Opinion affirming the final decree;

(d)   Editha Beck Poston v. Ody M. Poston

An extremely difficult contested custody case involving a parent who had a chemical dependency disorder. A copy of the final order is attached along with the unpublished Opinion of the Appellate Court affirming the decision;

(e)   Elizabeth W. Harrison, Attendance Supervisor Florence School District One, Petitioner, In re: Various Minors

In this case, the parents were contending the children were not going to school based on their religious belief and the teachings of their church. Extensive research was done revealing a precarious balancing test necessary. States do have the power to impose reasonable regulations concerning compulsory school attendance, however, the states are not totally free to overlook the fundamental right to exercise one's religion under the First Amendment."

Judge Morehead reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In the fall of 2002, was an unsuccessful candidate for Seat #6 on the South Carolina Court of Appeals which was ultimately won by Judge Donald Beatty. There were seven candidates, and the Merit Selection Commission found me qualified but not recommended."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Morehead's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Morehead to be qualified for re-election to the position of Family Court judge. The Committee "recommends this candidate without reservation."

Judge Morehead is married to Elaine Dempsey Morehead. He has two children.

Judge Morehead reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Formerly member of Richland County Bar Association from 1973 to 1976, American Judicature Society, The South Carolina Defense Attorneys Association and the American Bar Association;

(b)   Presently a member of the Florence County Bar Association and the South Carolina Bar Association. With the South Carolina Bar Association, have served as Sixth District Representative, Young Lawyers Division, from 1978 to 1980; on the Lawyer Referral Committee from 1974 to 1980; on the Practice and Procedures Committee from 1980 to 1982 and the Commission of Continuing Legal Education and Specialization from 1992 to 2000;

(c)   In 1994 served as President of the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges and was previously a member of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts;

(d)   Presently serving as Chairperson of the Family Court Judges' Advisory Committee to the Chief Justice."

Judge Morehead provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Member of the American Legion serving on local, district and state committees;

(b)   American Legion Palmetto Boys State for the past 40 years, serving as Director of the program from 1983 to 1999 (In 1999 received recognition from National Commander of the American Legion for working with youth in the State of South Carolina);

(c)   Member of the Pee Dee Area Citadel Club (past President);

(d)   Member of St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church (presently serve on the Diocesan Pastoral Council under Bishop Robert Baker for the Diocese of Charleston; past member of Parish Council and Chairman of School Board);

(e)   Worked with Encore Theatre Company and the Florence Little Theatre on its Board of Directors;

(f)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Association (in 1996 received the President's Award in recognition for assisting and beginning the Parent and Children in Transition Program in the state of South Carolina);

(g)   Served as Chairman of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Juvenile Justice Youth Council (Chairman from 1997 to 1999);

(h)   Served on the Governor's Juvenile Justice Task Force from 1997 to 1999."

The Commission noted that Judge Morehead has ably served as a Family Court judge for 21 years as well as provided his outstanding efforts to local and state professional organizations. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

R. Kinard Johnson, Jr.
Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Johnson since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Johnson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Johnson was born in 1944. He is 62 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Johnson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Johnson.

Judge Johnson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Johnson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Johnson reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Johnson reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Johnson described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"8/23/06   Annual Judicial Conference;
8/22/06   Mini Summit on Justice for Children;
4/26/06   Family Court Judges' Conference;
1/27/06   SC Bar Convention - Family Law Section seminar;
12/2/05   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar seminar;
8/24/05   Annual Judicial Conference;
4/27/05   Family Court Judges' Conference;
1/21/05   SC Bar Convention - Family Law Section seminar;
12/3/04   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar seminar;
8/19/04   Annual Judicial Conference;
8/19/04   Judicial Oath of Office seminar;
8/5/04     SCTLA - Family Law Seminar;
4/28/04   Family Court Judges' Conference;
1/23/04   SC Bar Convention - Family Law Section seminar;
12/5/03   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar seminar;
8/21/03   Annual Judicial Conference;
4/30/03   Family Court Judges' Conference;
1/24/03   SC Bar Convention - Family Law Section seminar;
12/6/02   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar seminar;
11/15/02   Compass of Carolina - Children Cope with Divorce for Professionals: co-parenting seminar;
8/22/02   Annual Judicial Conference;
1/25/02   SC Bar Convention - Family Law Section seminar;
12/7/01   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar seminar;
8/23/01   Annual Judicial Conference;
5/3/01     Family Court Judges' Conference;
1/26/01   SC Bar Convention - Family Law Section seminar."

Judge Johnson reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Judge Johnson reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Johnson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Johnson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Johnson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Johnson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Johnson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Johnson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"From my admittance to the South Carolina bar in 1969 until assuming a Family Court judgeship in 1982 I practiced law in the small general practice law firm headed by Rex L. Carter in Greenville. I have been a Family Court judge continuously since May 31, 1982."

Judge Johnson reported he has held the following judicial office:

"Family Court judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat # 2, from May 31, 1982, until the present. Elected by the State Legislature in 1982 and re-elected in 1985, 1989, 1995, and 2001. Jurisdiction is determined and limited by the Family Court Act."

Judge Johnson provided the following list of his five most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   S.C.D.S.S. v. Taylor, et al., South Carolina Court of Appeals, 2001-UP-069 (2001). The Court of Appeals affirmed my termination of a father's parental rights. I allowed lay opinion testimony of a D.S.S. caseworker regarding the best interest of the children and allowed leading questions of an expert witness. The Court ruled that I had acted within my discretion;

(b)   Pyle v. Pyle, South Carolina Court of Appeals, 2000-UP-462 (2000). The Court of Appeals affirmed my order terminating alimony to the former wife who had previously entered into a court-approved agreement that her alimony would terminate upon her cohabitation with an unrelated man. My order found several indicia of cohabitation sufficient to terminate alimony despite the denial by the former wife of cohabitation;

(c)   Rudisill v. Rudisill, South Carolina Court of Appeals, 98-UP-334 (1998). The Court of Appeals affirmed my order awarding permanent periodic alimony to the wife. In doing so it reaffirmed the principle in our domestic law that permanent periodic alimony is favored over rehabilitative alimony which should be awarded only upon a showing of special circumstances justifying departure from the normal preference for permanent periodic support;

(d)   In the Interest of Ronald S., a minor under the age of seventeen years, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 2730 (1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed my decision in which I followed the terms of another judge's suspended commitment of a delinquent juvenile to the Department of Juvenile Justice despite the fact that I was not bound by the terms of the juvenile's suspended sentence. The Court in its opinion affirmed my asserted principle that juveniles benefit from the consistency of enforcing court orders;

(e)   Greenville County Department of Social Services v. Bowes, 313 S.C. 188, 437 S.E.2d 107 (1993). The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed my termination of the parental rights of a schizophrenic mother and stated the principle that prior child abuse found by a preponderance of the evidence is insufficient to support termination of parental rights in a subsequent case where the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence applies."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Johnson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Johnson to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Johnson "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Johnson is married to Carol McKinney Johnson. He has two children.

Judge Johnson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Greenville County Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar;

(c)   South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges (secretary-treasurer 1991; vice-president 1992; president 1993);

(d)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."

Judge Johnson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Westminster Presbyterian Church, Greenville, S.C. (ruling elder);

(b)   Greenville Rotary Club (various committee memberships);

(c)   Urban League of the Upstate."

Judge Johnson additionally provided:

"I believe that I have served the citizens of South Carolina as a Family Court judge for over twenty-four years with personal and professional integrity in a conscientious, diligent, and competent manner."

The Commission commented that Judge Johnson is noted for his 24 years of good service as a Family Court judge and whose knowledge of Spanish is extremely helpful with Spanish speaking litigants in the courtroom. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Gerald C. Smoak, Jr.
Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Smoak since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Smoak meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court Judge.

Judge Smoak was born in 1959. He is 47 years old and a resident of Walterboro, South Carolina. Judge Smoak provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Smoak.

Judge Smoak demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Smoak reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Smoak reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Smoak reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Smoak to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Smoak described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Family Law Section - January 2001;

(b)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Conference - May 2001;

(c)   Judicial Conference - August 2001;

(d)   West Law Training - October 2001;

(e)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Conference - May 2002;

(f)     Judicial Conference - August 2002;

(g)   Family Law - Part I - January 2003;

(h)   Family Law - Part II - January 2003;

(i)     Family Law Section Meeting - January 2003;

(j)     Family Court Judges Conference - April 2003;

(k)   Judicial Conference - October 2003;

(l)     2003 Annual Judges Convention - October 2003;

(m)   Family Court Bench/Bar - December 2003;

(n)   Family Law Section - January 2004;

(o)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Conference - April 2004;

(p)   Judicial Conference - August 2004;

(q)   Judicial Oath of Office and Attorney's Oath - August 2004;

(r)     South Carolina Trial Lawyers, Family Law Seminar - August 2004;

(s)   Family Law Section - January 2005;

(t)     South Carolina Family Court Judges Conference - April 2005;

(u)   Judicial Conference - August 2005;

(v)   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar - December 2005;

(w)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Conference - April 2006;

(x)   Judicial Conference - August 2006."

Judge Smoak reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Estates;

(b)   Family Law;

(c)   Legal Bibliography;

(d)   Litigation;

(e)   Torts.

I was on the panel for discussion at the South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference, December 03, 1999. I have lectured at the local high school."

Judge Smoak reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Smoak did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Smoak did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Smoak has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Smoak was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Smoak reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Smoak appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Smoak appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Smoak was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1983 - Law Clerk for Honorable William T. Howell;
1984 to 1995 - General Practice with majority of work in Family Court;
1984 to 1993 and 1995 - Prosecutor for child abuse and neglect cases for the   Department of Social Services;
1984 to 1995 - Public Defender for City of Walterboro;
1993 to 1995 - Conflict Attorney for Colleton County Public Defender, including Juveniles;
1995 to present - Family Court Judge, 14th Judicial Circuit, Seat # 1."

Judge Smoak reported he has held the following judicial office:
"Family Court Judge, 1995 to Present, 14th Judicial Circuit, Seat # 1."

Judge Smoak provided the following list of his most important orders or opinions:

"(a)   In the Interest of: LaTreece M.D., a minor under the age of seventeen, U.P No. 2001-UP-071;

(b)   Lippincott v. Lippincott, U.P No. 2004-UP-104;

(c)   Wahl v. Flaherty, No. 1998-DR-32-2473;

(d)   Shannon v. Shannon, 578 S.E. 2d 753;

(e)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Cannon and Todd, U.P. No. 99-UP-432."

Judge Smoak reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"1994, Family Court Race for Seat # 2, 14th Judicial Circuit."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Smoak's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Smoak to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Judge Smoak is married to Elizabeth Thompson Smoak. He has two children.

Judge Smoak reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Former Member of South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   Colleton County Bar Association."

Judge Smoak provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Former Member Jaycees;

(b)   Former Sertoma Member;

(c)   Assistant Baseball Coach, Colleton County Recreation Commission, 1992 - 2002;

(d)   Member of the Colleton Preparatory Academy School Board 1998 - Present;

(e)   Member of the Bethel United Methodist Church;

(f)     Former Member of the Governor's Youth Council;

(g)   Judge for the National High School Mock Trial Championship;

(h)   Lectured to the Guardian Ad Litem program for the 14th Judicial Circuit;

(i)     Drug Court Judge for 14th Judicial Circuit;

(j)     Family Court Judge's Association Legislative Liaison Committee Member."

The Commission commented that Judge Smoak is a highly regarded judge who would ably continue to serve on the Family Court bench. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Robert S. Armstrong
Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Armstrong since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Armstrong meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Armstrong was born in 1956. He is 50 years old and a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina. Judge Armstrong provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Armstrong.

Judge Armstrong demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Armstrong reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Armstrong reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Armstrong reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Armstrong to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Armstrong described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Each year I have exceeded the required number of CLE hours by attending the Family Court Judges Conference; South Carolina Bar Midyear Conference; Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar; Annual Judicial Conference; and the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention;

(b)   I have attended a seminar for Chief Administrative Judges;

(c)   I was one of 25 judges from across the country selected to attend the National Judicial College to study remedies for international kidnapping pursuant to the Hague Convention;

(d)   I attended a seminar on ethics and professionalism in 2002."

Judge Armstrong reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   November, 1998, Bench/Bar CLE - I gave a presentation on issues in juvenile cases;

(b)   October, 1998, Solicitors Convention - I spoke on issues regarding juvenile crime;

(c)   October, 2001, Solicitors Convention - I spoke on issues related to competency;

(d)   December, 2001, South Carolina Bar/CLE - I spoke on the family court cases that arose during the year in a seminar that focused on state case law and developments;

(e)   January, 2003, GAL Certification Training - This was a two day training session for certification under the new GAL statute. I spoke on hearsay and the rules of evidence;

(f)   August, 2004, Annual Judicial Conference - I was on a panel that discussed issues of professional responsibility and the new oath for lawyers and judges;

(g)   August, 2005, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention - I was part of a panel that discussed current issues in family law;

(h)   October, 2005, Solicitors Convention - My topic was issues that could arise when dealing with the press during juvenile trials."

Judge Armstrong reported that he has published the following:
"'Up From the Lowcountry, Who is this New Kid on the Block'?, Fall Issue, 1993, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Bulletin. This was an article on the Honorable William T. Howell after his election as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Armstrong did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Armstrong did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Armstrong has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Armstrong was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Armstrong reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Armstrong reported he has held the following public offices:
"Assistant Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1985 - 1990; Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1990 - 1995; I have filed all reports when required by law."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Armstrong appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Armstrong appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Armstrong was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   Law Clerk, the Honorable William T. Howell, 1982 - 1983;

(b)   Public Defender for Allendale, Hampton, and Jasper Counties, 1983 - 1985;

(c)   Assistant Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, 1985 - 1990;

(d)   Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, 1990 - 1995;

(e)   Private Practice, 1995 - 1998, Sole practitioner with primary emphasis on family, criminal and personal injury cases."

Judge Armstrong provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Beauchamp v. Beauchamp, 98-DR-32-693; 2000-UP-612;

(b)   Bakala v. Bakala, 98-DR-07-687; 576 S.E.2d 156 (2003);

(c)   Brown v. Malloy, 99-DR-04-129; 546 S.E.2d 195 (Ct. App. 2001);

(d)   Arnal v. Arnal, 99-DR-07-1608; 609 S.E.2d 821 (Ct. App. 2005), Certiorari Granted March 23, 2006. The issues were visitation, child support, equitable division, attorney and GAL fees;

(e)   Marquez v. Caudill, et.al., 2004-DR-26-347."

Judge Armstrong reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I ran unsuccessfully for At-Large Seats on the Circuit Court in February 1994, February 1996, and May 1996. I also ran for the Court of Appeals in 2004. I was found qualified, but not nominated."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Armstrong's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Armstrong to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate who would ably serve on the Family Court bench."

Judge Armstrong is not married. He has two step-children.

Judge Armstrong reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Beaufort County Bar."

Judge Armstrong provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Former member, the University Club;

(b)   Former member, Hampton County Country Club."

Judge Armstrong additionally provided:

"(a)   Member, the Chief Justice's Commission on the Profession;

(b)   Current Secretary/Treasurer, South Carolina Family Court Judges   Association;

(c)   Chairman, Executive Committee, South Carolina Family Court Judges Association, June 2005 - June 2006."

The Commission noted Judge Armstrong's outstanding legal experience as well as his excellent judicial temperament. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

Joe M. Crosby
Family Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Crosby meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Mr. Crosby was born in 1969. He is 37 years old and a resident of Georgetown, South Carolina. Mr. Crosby provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1994.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Crosby.

Mr. Crosby demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Crosby reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Crosby testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Crosby testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Crosby described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Convention, February, 2006, Children's Law Committee;

(b)   Tort/Insurance Practices, 1/28/06;

(c)   Horry County Bar Family Court Seminar 12/9/05;

(d)   How to Prepare and Succeed at a Social Security Hearing 12/8/05;

(e)   Attorney Electronic Filing, (U.S. District Court) 7/4/05;

(f)   Lawyer's Oath Seminar, 11/19/04;

(g)   Handling Social Security Disability, 2/26/04;

(h)   Horry County Family Court Seminar, 12/9/03;

(i)     Litigation Technology Roadshow, 10/16/03;

(j)     Real Estate Practice, 10/8/03;

(k)   Court-Enforced Secrecy, 10/24/03;

(l)     South Carolina Construction Law, 3/28/03;

(m)   Horry County Family Court Seminar, 12/11/02;

(n)   Worker's Compensation Hearings in South Carolina, 12/18/02;

(o)   Social Security Disability Practice, 7/27/01;

(p)   Taking and Defending Effective Depositions, 10/3/01."

Mr. Crosby reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   2006 South Carolina Bar Convention; Children's Law Committee; Handling DSS Abuse and Neglect Cases- Guardian ad Litem Prespective. I spoke on a panel regarding the roles, duties, and obligations of the various parties (Judicial, Guardian ad Litem, Parents, Department of Social Services) in an abuse and neglect case. I spoke of the importance of qualified Guardians and the significance they have on the outcome of a case. I also spoke regarding the role of the attorney for the Guardian and the effect the attorney has on the case.

(b)   I have also taught a one session class regarding law during 'Merit Badge Week' for area Boy Scouts in 2005 and 2006."

Mr. Crosby reported that he has published the following: "The materials I prepared for the South Carolina Bar Convention, January 26, 2006, were included as printed material."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Crosby did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Crosby did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Crosby has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Crosby was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Crosby reported that his he is not individually rated by Martindale-Hubbell, but his firm has a rating of "BV."

Mr. Crosby reported he has held the following public office:

"I have been an elected member of the Georgetown County School Board since November 2000. I served a four-year term as a member and ran for the Chairman position in 2004. I have served in that capacity since November 2004. I was late filing a quarterly report in early 2001. The fine was $100.00 and was paid. There have been no other late filings."
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Crosby appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Crosby appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Crosby was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1994.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"After graduation I worked as a law clerk for the Honorable David H. Maring, Sr., Circuit Court Judge, 15th Judicial Circuit from 1994-1995. I was married in August of 1995 and moved to Charleston to join my wife who was employed in the 9th Circuit Solicitor's Office. I worked for the Anastopoulo Law Firm in Charleston for seven months in a personal injury practice after which I moved to Smith, Cox and Associates and worked there until November 1996 in a business-focused practice. In November 1996 my wife and I returned to Georgetown, South Carolina. I began work as an Associate for William Stuart Duncan in a plaintiff's practice in which I was referred all Family Court cases. I continued in this capacity until 2000 when we moved the practice and we became Duncan and Crosby, P.A. In 2004 Robert Maring joined as a partner so we became Duncan, Crosby and Maring. LLC. Since 1996 my family court practice has expanded. It has changed in that the nature of the family court cases I take are more complex. However, I have appeared literally hundreds of times in the Georgetown County Family Court. Although I have been involved in federal litigation on issues ranging from the Fair Labor Standards Act to religious freedom, my main focus and practice has been family court since 1996."

Mr. Crosby further reported:
"Divorce and Equitable Division:

Since 1996 I have handled numerous divorce and equitable division cases. I have obtained divorces for my clients on fault grounds as well as no fault divorces. I have served individuals in New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Texas and all over South Carolina. Division cases have involved estates of just over one million dollars and estates worth very little. I have used financial planners and accountants and simply presented the property division as agreed to by the parties. I even had one case where I specifically told the judge I recommended against the agreement but that my client still wanted to waive her interest in her husband's retirement account.
Child Custody:

Child custody is almost always an issue at the beginning of the case when emotions are high. However, the Guardian ad Litem has had a very significant impact on custody cases. I have been the Guardian ad Litem in contested cases and fully understand the significance of the GAL report. In all custody cases I review the relevant factors with my client. This helps the client consider the likelihood of being awarded custody and what is in the best interest of the child.
Adoption:

I have only done four adoptions. However, the statutory requirements are clear. I have done two third-party adoptions, one grandparent adoption, and one step-parent adoption. The step-parent adoption involved the United States Department of State since the child was born on a U.S. military base overseas.
Abuse and neglect:

I have been involved in abuse and neglect cases for at least seven years. As a result I am very familiar with the regulatory guidelines, differences between types of hearings, preferences, and the foster care system. Have had case involving simple inadvertent neglect to long term sexual abuse to death of a child. I understand the significance of treatment plans and the significance of completion of a treatment plan.
Juvenile justice:

I have very little experience in this area. The last case I had involved a child bringing a knife to school. I was able to negotiate a good result for my client in that case. I would want to observe some current juvenile cases prior to presiding over such charges. I do, however, have experience in the prosecution and defense of criminal charges as both a magistrate's court prosecutor and a magistrate's court public defender."

Mr. Crosby reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   about once a month. This includes Social Security appeals and Social Security hearings;

(b)   State:     monthly. Mostly Family Court."

Mr. Crosby reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     50%;

(b)   Criminal:   When I prosecuted DUIs and Criminal Domestic violence for the Georgetown County's solicitor's office in magistrate's court, I was in court every other week. I gave up that contract about three years ago. Since that time my criminal practice has been only occasional;

(c)   Domestic:   50%."

Mr. Crosby reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     5%;

(b)   Non-jury:   95%."

Mr. Crosby provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Crosby's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Fredrick Herman v. The State of South Carolina; retained PCR. I successfully pursued a post-conviction relief for a client which resulted in a greatly reduced sentence: twenty-five years to four. The Attorney General's Office consented to resentencing.

(b)   McEntire v. Mooregard; C/A # 98-CP-22-736; 353 S.C. 629, 578 S.E.2d 746 South Carolina Court of Appeals, March 17, 2003. We were awarded a new trial based on the Thirteenth Juror Doctrine and prevailed on appeal. The case settled after the trial judge was affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

(c)   Representing the volunteer Guardian ad litem program. Because they involve children, many of my most significant matters are the hundreds of cases I have handled as attorney for the Georgetown Volunteer Guardian ad litem program. These cases have involved litigating on behalf of abused and neglected children.

(d)   Dept of Social Services v. Murray; I successfully argued at the trial level case seeking to dismiss a volunteer Guardian ad litem. The order was appealed by the dismissed GAL. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as moot by the South Carolina Supreme Court in an unpublished decision.

(e)   Haley v. Nationsbank, N.A.; 98-CP-22-780. I represented a client seeking to claim part of the Nationsbank $10,000.00 reward for providing information leading to the arrest of church arsonists in the Manning area. The case settled prior to trial. I had to depose FBI agents, noticed the deposition of the CEO of Bank of America, and prepared the case for trial. "

The following is Mr. Crosby's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Herman v. South Carolina; South Carolina Circuit Court (PCR) Case resolved by consent. April 13, 2000;

(b)   McEntire v. Mooregard; 353 S.C. 629, 578 S.E.2d 746 South Carolina Court of Appeals, March 17, 2003;

(c)   Barry Holmes v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart; 03-2906-13BC U.S. District Court. The District Court remanded the decision of the Commissioner. April 25, 2005;

(d)   Anthony Hyman v. Jo Ann B. Barnhart; 05-03168-DCN U.S. District Court. The District Court remanded the decision of the Commissioner. February 21, 2003;

(e)   John Calhoun v. Jo Ann B. Barnhart; 04 1682 HFF U.S. District Court. The District Court remanded the decision of the Commissioner. March 8, 2006."

Mr. Crosby reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Crosby's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Joe M. Crosby to be well-qualified for the position on the Family Court. The Committee further noted that Mr. Crosby "is a well respected member of the Georgetown Bar. He has a strong background in Family Law and is very involved in the community. His only weakness appeared to be a lack of experience in juvenile criminal law, but he had an aggressive plan to study the process during current Judge's terms of court and with the help of other practitioners."

Mr. Crosby is married to Elise Townsend Freeman. He has two children.

Mr. Crosby reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Georgetown County Bar;

(c)   Family Law Section, South Carolina Bar."

Mr. Crosby provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Georgetown County School Board, Chairman;

(b)   Winyah Indigo Society;

(c)   Prince George Episcopal Church.

I would like to clarify membership in the Winyah Indigo Society. It does not restrict membership based on race. Additionally, the society grants an annual scholarship to the top graduate of Georgetown High School each year. Also, the meeting hall is rented on a regular basis for receptions, events and other celebrations by all members of our community. I also will leave the Boy Scouts due to their positions on gender and religion."

Mr. Crosby additionally provided:

"I have not been through this process before, but I believe the judicial screening process will provide me an appropriate opportunity to describe some of the reasons that I believe I am an excellent candidate and well-matched for the seat I seek. Those reasons include that I live and practice in the county seat, I am a family-court practitioner, I am on a cordial, familiar, first-name basis with our Clerk of Court and her staff in Family Court, and I believe my experience chairing our School Board meetings is invaluable training in leadership, maintaining a professional demeanor, and retaining some control over the boardroom, tempered with courtesy to the public and to those appearing before the board."

The Commission noted that Mr. Crosby is very well-respected by the local bar as a legal practitioner. They commented that his professional and his life experiences would serve him well on the Family Court bench. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for service on the Family Court bench.

Anita R. Floyd
Family Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Floyd meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Ms. Floyd was born in 1960. She is 46 years old and a resident of Garden City, South Carolina. Ms. Floyd provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Floyd.

Ms. Floyd demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Ms. Floyd reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Ms. Floyd testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Ms. Floyd testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Floyd described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   12/11/02:   Procedural and Substantive Law: Family Court Seminar in Horry County;

(b)   05/02:     Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules Revisions;

(c)   5/15/03:   Deposition Boot Camp;

(d)   10/30/03:   Bad Faith Litigation in South Carolina;

(e)   01/28/04:   South Carolina Estate Planning and Drafting Fundamentals;

(f)   03/24/04:   SC Probate: Beyond the Basics;

(g)   04/09/04:   Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners;

(h)   10/14/04:   Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE;

(i)     10/15/04:   2004 Master-in-Equity Bench/Bar;

(j)     11/19/04:   SC Bar Masters In Trial;

(k)   12/3/04 - 12/4/04:   SCTLA Auto Tort Seminar;

(l)     12/08/04:   Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar;

(m)   04/19/05:   Secrecy and the Courts: Protective Orders;

(n)   09/28/05:   Ethical Issues in ADR and Mediation;

(o)   11/11/05:   Masters in Trial in Myrtle Beach, SC;

(p)   12/02/05:   SCTLA Auto Torts Seminar in Atlanta, Ga.;

(q)   12/09/05:   Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar."

Ms. Floyd reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"In 2001, I lectured at a local CLE on various forms of pleading in the Family Court."

Ms. Floyd reported that she has published the following:

"In 1984, I took a course in school from Professor Nolan, for whom I prepared an exit paper that was entitled 'Alternatives to Incarceration'. Professor Nolan asked me if he could cite my work in a treatise or law review article that he had written on that same subject. I of course agreed. However, I never received a copy of the article, nor do I know where it was published, nor am I positive that he actually used my work."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Ms. Floyd did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Floyd did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Floyd has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Floyd was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Floyd reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Ms. Floyd appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Ms. Floyd appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Floyd was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1985 - 1986: Stevens Thomas & Hearn;
1986 - Sole practitioner, with a general practice. My primary area of concentration is domestic litigation. However, I have tried all levels of criminal cases, including having been appointed to at least one death penalty case. I have also tried personal injury cases, and have been involved in matters involving the Probate Courts as well."

Ms. Floyd further reported:

"I have practiced extensively in the Family Court arena since 1986. I have represented children in all matters of alleged delinquent behavior, from truancy to runaway to murder. I have represented Defendants as well as guardians in matters involving the Department of Social Services. I have handled all matters of divorces, those that were uncontested and those that have lasted for weeks. I have represented Plaintiffs and Defendants when the alleged spouse was claiming a common law marriage, and I have obtained annulments on several occasions as well. On one occasion, I represented a disabled lady who, prior to a marriage, had been receiving benefits from a former spouse. I assisted her in gaining an annulment from spouse #2, which was tantamount to a ruling that the marriage never existed. Accordingly, the benefits from the first spouse were 'resurrected'.

I have represented persons who had very little property, and I have represented persons with substantial marital estates. Recently, I represented one person whose spouse was under indictment for tax evasion and who had allegedly placed un-accounted for money off-shore. Spouse also incorrectly claimed to have no interest in one piece of property that my client not only proved was owned by spouse (even though no deed had yet been transferred), but was also worth in excess of $1,000,000.00. On another occasion in the early 1990's, I represented a lady who believed that her husband had transferred close to a million dollars to the Bahamas and was headed there to join the money and never return. I was able to get an ex parte Restraining Order prohibiting the dissipation of funds, and I forwarded a copy of that Order to Bank of America, which had to interrupt instructions for a wire transfer of funds. The spouse decided not to go to the Bahamas, and the parties reconciled.

I have represented many litigants in custody disputes, and I have also represented grandparents in efforts to gain visitation and to gain custody. I have argued for grandparents' rights before the South Carolina Supreme Court, and have another grandparents' issue pending before the Appellate Courts.

I have represented persons in matters of adoption, both contested and uncontested. I have represented step-parents seeking to legalize the relationship through adoption, and I have represented parents who are fighting not to lose their rights to children.

Although I have not tried a Department of Social Services (DSS) case in several years, I continue to have involvement with that agency peripherally through existing clients, and therefore I am familiar with the rules and the procedures of DSS."

Ms. Floyd reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   1 criminal case (mail fraud). I was in court for a pre-trial, and for a plea, and then for a conference where the plea was then diverted;

(b)   State:     I have appeared in the State Court of Common Pleas on numerous occasions, for purposes of motions and trials. I could not accurately reflect the number of times I have appeared, as the files do not reflect all dates of motions, or roster calls.

I have appeared in the State Court of General Sessions on numerous occasions, though I could not accurately reflect the number of times I have appeared, as the files do not reflect all dates of motions or roll calls.

I have appeared in the Family Courts of this State on many occasions. In fact, seldom does a week pass that I have not had a motion or a trial or a conference before either a Resident Judge or a visiting Judge. On an average, I would 'guesstimate' that I am in this court 2 - 3 times a week, at the very least. There is no accurate way to reflect how often I am in court, as only my timesheets would reflect that, and when a file is closed, I would not retain my time sheet unless there is an issue with the billing.

In the past 5 years, I have handled two extensive probate matters, one of which is on appeal. I was in court on motions and for trials no less than 10 times. Additionally, I handled estate matters that required only limited appearances, or uncontested appearances for purposes of closing estates. I could not accurately set forth the number of appearances I had in the Probate Court."

Ms. Floyd reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       10%;

(b)   Criminal:     10%;

(c)   Domestic:   75%.
NOTE: These are approximate figures, as some cases are more time consuming than others. For example, one criminal case may immediately result in a plea, and another case may require months of discovery followed by days of trial. In 2002, I did not represent many criminal defendants; however, one of the defendants was charged with murder, and it was extremely time-consuming. In fact, for about 3 weeks before trial, I did nothing but prepare, and the trial then lasted 4 days. Thus, while the case load was minimal, the time involved in that area of practice was substantial."

Ms. Floyd reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     During the past five years, I have had two personal injury matters that did not settle prior to trial. Thus, the percentage in terms of number of cases that went to trial was less than 1%. I have tried two criminal matters in the past five (5) years that did not either get diverted or result in a plea;

(b)   Non-jury:   In regards to common pleas matters, less than 5%. In regards to Family Court matters, more than 75% of my clients reach settlements, either through negotiation with opposing counsel, or through mediation. Thus, approximately 30% of my cases actually proceeded to trial."

Ms. Floyd provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Floyd's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   RGM v. DEM, 306 S.C. 145, 410 S.E. 2nd 564 (1991). The Supreme Court held that a homosexual relationship constituted adultery and would bar the offending spouse from the receipt of alimony. This was a matter of first impression before the Supreme Court, and is still considered 'good law';

(b)   Camburn v. Smith, 355 S.C. 574, 586 S.E. 2nd 565 (2003). The Supreme Court did not invalidate the statute as it related to grandparents' visitation. However, it drastically narrowed the statute through its ruling that the wishes of a fit parent in regards to visitation shall not be modified or overturned by the Family Court;

(c)   Myriam Marquez v. David Caudill, 2004-DR-26-347. This matter was heard August 15 - 18, 2005, and an appeal is pending from the ruling of the trial court. In this matter, I represented the maternal grandmother, who was seeking custody of her grandson after the death of her daughter, and was seeking visitation with her granddaughter. The boy's natural father had no relationship with this child, and had executed an Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights and Consent for Adoption. The girl's natural father was the estranged husband of the deceased mother, and he had counterclaimed for adoption of the boy. He also denied that the grandmother was entitled to visitation with his daughter except as he may deem appropriate. Thus, the issues presented to the Court included adoption by step-parent versus custody by blood relative of one child, and visitation by grandparent of another child. The trial judge awarded the adoption, despite a Guardian's report, and despite the report of a forensic psychologist who determined that there was no existence of a psychological parent/child relationship between the boy and the step-parent; and he ordered visitation. This case is important as I think that the Appellate Courts will have to address the potential discrepancy between the South Carolina Statute which provides for grandparents' visitation in specific circumstances, and the findings of the Supreme Court in Camburn v. Smith. Also, this case will give the Appellate Court the opportunity to address the appropriateness of step-parent adoptions, and to provide some guidelines as to when such an adoption should (or should not) be allowed;

(d)   In 1985 - 1986, I was appointed to represent a defendant in a DSS case, and the litigant was allegedly both a victim of sexual abuse when she was growing up, as well as a perpetrator. I did not recognize the name of the Defendant. However, when I met with the person, I recognized her as someone with whom I had attended middle school (7th grade). This experience was an epiphany, in that it was probably the first time I realized how privileged I had been while growing up, and it probably marks the beginning of the development of my social conscience;

(e)   In about 1991, I was appointed to represent a juvenile who was charged with murder. The juvenile's father had convinced the juvenile to shoot the boyfriend of the child's mother (the father's estranged spouse). I argued at the disposition hearing that the child had been coerced by his father, and that his father was truly the responsible party. This case was important to me for several reasons, including the following: (a) The hearing Judge was H.E. Bonnoitt, Jr., and it was handled very soon after Judge Bonnoitt had been elected to the bench; Judge Bonnoitt was patient and he was sympathetic to the situation, even talking to the Juvenile about his plans, as the Juvenile had been a promising athlete; (b) The Juvenile recognized that there were people who actually wanted him to succeed, and when he was released from DYS at the age about 18, he elected to live with a relative (as opposed to his father) and pursue an education; (c) a Mr. Bob McInnis was present in the courtroom on the date of the disposition hearing, and he began to refer all of his family court matters to me. This was an important case, as I realized that most lawyers really want to help other lawyers; and also, that with enough encouragement and hard work, even a situation that appears to be hopeless can be salvaged. I truly believe one reason this juvenile did so well while in Columbia (at DYS) was because he realized that the 'system' did not abandon him."

The following is Ms. Floyd's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   RGM v. DEM, 306 S.C. 145, 410 S.E. 2nd 564 (1991);

(b)   Edna McCormick v. Issac Frank McCormick, case number 99-DR-26-2513. This was an unpublished opinion issued by the Court of Appeals;

(c)   Camburn v. Smith, 355 S.C. 574, 586 S.E. 2nd 565 (2003);

(d)   Karen Watts v. Mace Watts, case number 03-DR-26-1072. (decision pending; briefs have been completed but no oral argument scheduled);

(e)   Myriam Marquez v. David Caudill, 2004-DR-26-347. (pending; Appellant's initial brief has been filed)."

The following is Ms. Floyd's account of the criminal appeal she has personally handled:
"State v. Wesley Grainger. This was actually a Post Conviction Release matter. The Order granting the PCR was issued in 2004. The conviction was in the General Sessions Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit."

Ms. Floyd reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"In 1985 I ran for the South Carolina House of Representatives."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Floyd's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Floyd to be "well qualified for the position of judge on the Family Court." The Committee commented that she "is a well respected member of the Horry County Bar who resides in Georgetown County. She also appeared to have a great deal of Family Court experience" and "had a good grasp of the subject matter to be dealt with in that Court."

Ms. Floyd is not married. She does not have any children.

Ms. Floyd reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   Horry County Bar Association;

(c)   Coastal Women's Law Society."

Ms. Floyd provided that she was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.

The Commission noted that Ms. Floyd is considered a well respected member of the Horry County Bar who has a great deal of Family Court experience. She was found qualified by the Commission to serve on the Family Court.

Charles R. Goude
Family Court for the Fifteenth Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Goude meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Mr. Goude was born in 1950. He is 56 years old and a resident of Hemingway, South Carolina. Mr. Goude provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Goude.

Mr. Goude demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Goude reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Goude testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Goude testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Goude described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Attended more than mandatory hours of CLE;

(b)   Attended South Carolina Bankruptcy Lawyers Association annual conventions 2005 and 2006;

(c)   Attended National Consumer Bankruptcy Lawyers Association annual conventions 2005 and 2006;

(d)   Generally attend the annual South Carolina Public Defenders Association convention usually held in Charleston, SC. I was unable to attend this year 2006."

Mr. Goude reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"Taught paralegal and criminal justice courses at Georgetown, SC, branch of Horry-Georgetown TEC, for couple of years at night school in mid-late 1980s."

Mr. Goude reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Goude revealed a public reprimand issued in 1988. The Commission thoroughly questioned him about this matter at the Public Hearing and determined that Mr. Goude possessed the requisite character and temperament to serve as a judge. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Goude did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Goude has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Goude was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Goude reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Mr. Goude reported the following military service:
"USMC, 1968-1972, Sgt., honorable discharge.
USAF, 1980-1983, Capt., Judge Advocate General Office, honorable discharge."
(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Goude appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Goude appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Goude was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1980-1983, Judge Advocate in USAF, was prosecutor and defense attorney in courts-martial cases; also was a claims officer, reviewed contracts, advised personnel on private civil matters such as divorces, wills, etc.;
1984-present, private attorney, solo practice, large practice of divorces, bankruptcies, injuries, wills, adoptions, real estate; approximately 3,000 civil cases;
1984-present, chief public defender in Georgetown County, SC, represent all types of General Sessions, and Juvenile Court offenses, from murder to shoplifting; approximately 4,000 criminal and juvenile cases."

Mr. Goude further provided:
"Divorce and equitable division of property, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect: I have handled over 1,000 of these civil type cases. I have handled multiple day divorces, contested child custody, contested multiple day adoptions, and abuse and neglect. I have represented equally the men and the women, sometimes the child. I have negotiated hundreds of agreements between parties, including husband and wife, grandparents, children, legal guardianships, child support, alimony, QDROs, property division, maintained NADA vehicle books for valuations, obtained real estate appraisals for realty division in divorces, consulted experts in CPA, psychiatrists and psychologists in child custody and visitation, consulted DSS experts in visitation, custody, termination of parental rights. I have represented adopting persons. I have counseled parents who were giving up their parental rights. I have been involved in many DSS cases involving removal of children from parents. I have fought to remove the children. I have fought for parents to regain their children. I have worked with guardians ad litem in many cases.
Juvenile justice: I have represented over 1,000 juveniles in Family Court. I have been a part-time public defender in Georgetown County since 1984. I have tried numerous cases before the Family Court. I have handled all types of cases, from murder downwards.
Summary: In the 23 years I have been practicing in family court in Georgetown, SC, I have become familiar with the laws and procedures used in Family Court. I have prepared hundreds of orders for Judges' signatures. I have researched evidence and case law and rules of evidence on countless occasions. I have dealt with the Judges, other lawyers, court staff, clerk of court staff, law enforcement, bailiffs, parties, clients, opponents, witnesses, guardians, process servers, etc. for 23 years in Georgetown."

Mr. Goude reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   Bankruptcy court, 2-3 times per month in Charleston or Columbia;

(b)   State:     In general sessions court, about one-two weeks per month.

In common pleas court, once each couple of months or so.

In family court, divorces etc., several times each couple of weeks or so.

In family court, in juvenile cases, 6 or so cases per month."

Mr. Goude reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       25%;

(b)   Criminal:     50%;

(c)   Domestic:   25%."

Mr. Goude reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       5-10%;

(b)   Non-jury:   90-95%."

Mr. Goude provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Goude's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   In 1999, family court, represented wife in family court contested trial. We offered to settle case. Husband would not settle. We tried the case. We won larger award at trial than we had offered to settle for. Husband appealed case. Appeals hearing before Court of Appeals in March, 2001, affirmed trial court order. Significance was amount of work I put in, and fact that opponent husband used 4 different lawyers in the case, whereas I remained the sole lawyer for my client the wife. Case Ward v. Ward;

(b)   Mid 1990s, family court, represented husband and wife seeking adoption of foster child, and termination of parental rights of biological parents. The contested trial lasted for days. DSS was involved, numerous attorneys, guardian ad litem(s), attorney for biological parents. Present Chief Justice of Court of Appeals was trial judge in family court in Georgetown, SC. We won the case and adopted the child. The child is now a young adult and still remains with his adoptive family. Significance were many hearings, many parties and much time, much research, much in court time, much preparation, great result. Key case;

(c)   Mid 1990s, family court, I did not represent either party in family court contested trial of property division and alimony. Husband retained me to appeal the trial judge's decision. Husband had not presented the evidence clearly enough for trial judge to make fair decision. We appealed the decision through Court of Appeals and South Carolina Supreme Court. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted my client the husband a much greater share in the property division and reversed that portion of the original decree of the trial court. Significance was digging needed to find evidence to present to appellate courts to show fair property division, appellate process through Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, final fair result for client husband. Murray v. Murray case;

(d)   In 2001, general sessions, defense counsel in murder case, representing one of two defendants charged with murder of 2 year old boy. Significance was penalty client faced of life in prison, severance of trials, mistrial of co-defendant who was mother of child, DSS removal hearings of the other children of co-defendant, multiple parties intervening in DSS removal case with guardian(s) ad litem, my attending the DSS hearings to obtain evidence, my attending and obtaining court reporter to transcribe the co-defendant's nearly week long trial first general sessions trial which was mistrial, and second general sessions trial resulting in co-defendant's guilty verdict; and amount of preparation involved, about 21 pages of time sheets and about 169 hours of work. State v. McClellan case;

(e)   In 2000, general sessions, represented one of two defendants in a murder case, trial lasted about 3 days, significant for penalty client faced life in prison, publicity, gruesomeness, and client/defendant according to prosecution witnesses composed rap song of the murder, and amount of preparation involved. State v. Wright case;

(f)   In 2000, common pleas, represented client, elderly lady, in medical malpractice case against hospital involving client falling and breaking leg in hospital room. Significant for extent of injuries, amount of preparation involved, multiple day trial, obtaining expert witness(es), and my willingness to work for client and take case all the way through trial. Haithcock case;

(g)   About 1990, general sessions, represented defendant in murder trial. Trial resulted in not guilty verdict for my client based on self defense. Significant for penalty client faced of life in prison, amount of preparation involved, trial lasted about 3 days, much on scene investigation, witness obtaining and preparation, trial effort, and good not guilty verdict result. 0."

The following is Mr. Goude's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   In 1999, family court, represented wife in family court contested trial. We offered to settle case. Husband would not settle. We tried the case. We won larger award at trial than we had offered to settle for. Husband appealed case. Appeals hearing before Court of Appeals in March, 2001, affirmed trial court order. Significance was amount of work I put in, and fact that opponent husband used 4 different lawyers in the case, whereas I remained the sole lawyer for my client the wife. Case Ward v. Ward, 98-DR-22-2911;

(b)   Mid 1990s, family court, I did not represent either party in family court contested trial of property division and alimony. Husband retained me to appeal the trial judge's decision. Husband had not presented the evidence clearly enough for trial judge to make fair decision. We appealed the decision through Court of Appeals and South Carolina Supreme Court. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted my client the husband a much greater share in the property division and reversed that portion of the original decree of the trial court. Significance was digging needed to find evidence to present to appellate courts to show fair property division, appellate process through Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, final fair result for client husband. Murray v. Murray, 1996 case;

(c)   I have appealed one or so workers' compensation cases to the Workers Compensation Commission, and to the circuit court. I do not do a lot of civil court appeals."

Mr. Goude reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I applied for circuit court judge, Georgetown County seat, 15th Judicial Circuit, in 1998. I was not elected. Judge Paula Thomas won. I applied for circuit court judge, 15th Judicial Circuit, Horry County seat, in 2001 was not elected. Judge Steven John won."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Goude's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Goude to be "well qualified for the position on the Family Court." The Committee commented that Mr. Goude of the Georgetown bar is "another candidate with a great deal of Family Court experience."

Mr. Goude is not married. He has one child.

Mr. Goude reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   SC Bar since 1979;

(b)   Georgetown County Bar, currently President for 2006;

(c)   South Carolina Bankruptcy Lawyers Association;

(d)   National Consumer Bankruptcy Lawyers Association;

(e)   Off and on I join and quit the ATLA, and the SCTLA."

Mr. Goude provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Member, Mount Zion Baptist Church, Hemingway, SC; attended there all my life.

(b)   Member, Georgetown Breakfast Rotary Club, Georgetown, SC, for about 6 years; President for 2004-2005."

Mr. Goude additionally provided:

"I am 56 years of age. I am healthy, hard working, fair, and intelligent. I have good character. I am a man of integrity. I regularly attend church. I come from a fine hard working honest patriotic farming family. My family remain close knit. I have a great daughter and three wonderful grand-children. The Goudes have lived in low country South Carolina for over 200 years. My father was a sailor at Iwo Jima in WWII. I volunteered for the Marines during Vietnam. I attended college at USC and law school at USC on the GI Bill, part time work, summer work, and student loans. I served as an Air Force JAG for 4 years after law school. I traveled all over the world in the military.

In 1984, in Georgetown, SC, I opened a law office from scratch, solely on my own, and since then I have had a successful law practice in the same building in the same town in the same county as the Family Court judgeship I am seeking-namely Georgetown County, SC. I have practiced law from the ground up, I have done the fighting in the trenches. I have represented criminal defense clients, young kids in juvenile court, women trying to keep their children, men whose wives were running around, persons trying to adopt kids to give the kids a better life. I have represented teenage boys in juvenile court charged with murdering other teenage boys. I have fought over property division, alimony, child custody, child support, attorney fees, termination of parental rights, adoption, change of child custody, modification of child support and alimony. I have appealed some cases in family court to the appellate court. I have worked as a private retained attorney. I have worked as a part time public defender. I have represented nearly 7,000 clients in 23 years of practice. 2,000 of these clients have been family court, 1,000 as divorces etc., and 1,000 as juvenile cases. I have done for 23 years in family court the same thing I would be expected to do as a Family Court judge in the same county. I have traveled to many other counties practicing family court law. I am experienced and well qualified for this job."

The Commission noted that Mr. Goude has vast experience in all areas of legal practice including before the Family Court. They noted his fine professional record before the local bar. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.

Jan B. Holmes
Family Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Holmes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Ms. Holmes was born in 1970. She is 36 years old and a resident of Georgetown, South Carolina. Ms. Holmes provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1995.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Holmes.

Ms. Holmes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Ms. Holmes reported that she has made $87.18 in campaign expenditures for color copies, postage, and resume paper.

Ms. Holmes testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Ms. Holmes testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Holmes described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   09/29-30/06     South Carolina Black Lawyers Association Summit and Retreat;

(b)   12/09/05   Family Court Seminar: Procedural and Substantive Law;

(b)   11/16/05   Claims and Underwriting Seminar;

(c)   12/08/04   Family Court Seminar: Procedural and Substantive Law;

(d)   12/09/03   Family Court Seminar: Procedural and Substantive Law;

(e)   11/18/03   Claims and Underwriting Seminar;

(f)   11/07/03   Nuts and Bolts of Family Court;

(g)   12/11/02   Family Court Seminar: Procedural and Substantive Law;

(h)   11/06/02   Claims and Underwriting Seminar;

(i)     10/26/01   A Day in Discovery: Win Your Case Before Trial;

(j)     10/05/00   Family Court Seminar: Procedural and Substantive Law;

(k)   01/07/00   That Was the Year that Was."

Ms. Holmes reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Ms. Holmes reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Ms. Holmes did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Holmes did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Holmes has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Holmes was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Holmes reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is unknown.
(6)   Physical Health:

Ms. Holmes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Ms. Holmes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Holmes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1995.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"Since my graduation from law school on May 13, 1995, I worked for Morant and Morant Law Firm located at 1022 Prince Street in Georgetown, SC from September 1995 to July 1997. I performed title searches, closed real estate loans, handled social security disability cases, personal injury cases, prepared wills, prepared deeds and handled family court cases.

In July 1997, I ventured out and opened my own law firm, Jan B. Bromell, P.A. Seventy-five (75%) of my practice consists of domestic matters. I prosecute and defend child support and child custody cases, divorce, alimony, separate maintenance and support, adoption and termination of parental rights, appointed and retained on juvenile cases, appointed and retained on abuse and neglect matters, name change, annulment, equitable distribution, and orders of protection. Twenty-four percent (24%) of my practice consists of civil matters. I handle real estate transactions, perform title searches, handle social security disability cases, personal injury cases, prepare power of attorney, contracts, wills and deeds. One percent (1%) of my practice consists of criminal cases."

Ms. Holmes further provided:
"DIVORCE AND EQUITABLE DIVISION OF PROPERTY

Seventy five percent of my practice in family court has concerned the issue of divorce and equitable division of property. Approximately fifty percent of the cases were resolved by agreement of the parties by a simply explanation of the factors that the court considers in equitable division of property as governed by the Equitable Apportionment of Marital Property Act, S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Sections 20-7-471 et seq. as follows: (1) the duration of the marriage and age of the parties at the time of marriage and separation; (2) marital misconduct or fault of either or both parties; (3) value of the marital property and each person contribution to the acquisition, depreciation or appreciation of the property; (4) income of each spouse, the earning potential of each spouse and the opportunity for future acquisition of capital asset; (5) the physical and emotion health of each spouse; (6) the need of each spouse or either spouse for additional training or education in order to achieve that spouses' earning potential; (7) the non-marital property of each spouse; (8) the existence or non-existence of vested retirement benefits of either spouse; (9) whether separate maintenance or alimony is awarded; (10) the desirability of awarding the family home as part of equitable distribution or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having custody of any children; (11) the tax consequences to the parties; (12) the existence and extent of any support obligations, from a prior marriage or for any other reason(s); (13) liens and any other encumbrances upon the marital property, which upon themselves must be equitably divided, or upon any separate property owned by either party, and any other existing debts incurred by the parties or either of them during the course of the marriage; (14) child custody arrangements and obligations and (15) such other relevant factors as the trial court expresses in its ruling.

In the case of Duncan v. Duncan 2004 DR 22 539, I represented the Plaintiff Mother. The parties in this case were married for twelve years and had an eleven year child. Mother was granted custody of the child by agreement of the parties. The parties had acquired two homes during their marriage: both had encumbrances. The parties had no other marital debt. The case was resolved by selling the home that had the most equity. The proceeds were used to pay off the mortgage on the other home and the balance was distributed evenly to the parties. The Mother was granted the right to live in the family home because she had custody of the minor child until the child reaches age 18. Thereafter, the home will be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties.

In the case of Anthony v. Anthony 99 DR 22 526, the essential issue before the Court was whether Husband was entitled to a "special equity" in the home owned by wife prior to the parties' marriage. Husband was a contractor. During the course of the marriage, the parties made substantial improvements to the home of the Wife. Husband argued that he invested more of his time and resources than did Wife. Wife contended that although Husband performed all of the improvements to the home, the improvements depreciated the value of the home. The court considered the value of the home at the time of the marriage, the value of the home after improvements were made by husband, the extent of husband's contribution to the improvement and the value of the home at the time of marital dissolution. Husband was awarded a special equity in wife's non-marital home.

In Blyden v. Blyden 2001 DR 22 873 and Eaddy v. Eaddy 2005 DR 22 28, I represented the Plaintiff Mother. The facts are similar in these cases. The parties in each case were married for more than ten years. The Mother in each case was awarded custody of the minor child(ren) by consent of the Father. The household furnishings were divided by agreement of the parties. In Blyden, the parties did not have any marital debt. However both parties had retirement accounts. In Eaddy, the parties had filed bankruptcy and all debts were governed by Bankruptcy Court. The essential issue in each case was equitable distribution of the remaining marital assets. The Mother in Eaddy could not mortgage the marital home to pay Father his portion of equity due to the bankruptcy. Thus the Mother in Eaddy waived her right to collect child support from the Father for a specified time period in exchange for satisfaction of her obligation to pay Father the equity that he was entitled. The Mother in Blyden waived her right to collect child support from the Father in exchange for the Father waiving any claim to her retirement account.
CHILD CUSTODY

I have had the opportunity, over the course of eleven years, to handle numerous contested child custody matters. The Court in child custody matters must determine what is in the best interest of the child. Factors the court must consider are the character, fitness, attitude and inclination on the part of each parent as they impact or relate to the child. Paparella v. Paparella 340 S.C. 186, 531 S.E.2d 297 (Ct. App. 2000). Other factors of consideration are family, psychological, physical, environmental, spiritual, emotional and recreational aspects of the child's life. The Court must look to the totality of circumstances as it affects the child.
In the case of Myers v. Myers 2001 DR 26 2979, I represented the Defendant Mother. In this case, the parties were married for thirteen years and had two minor sons, eleven (11) and nine (9). The Mother left the marital residence and took the minor children with her due to the parties' irreconcilable differences. The Husband filed for a divorce on the grounds of adultery and requested custody of the children. At the temporary hearing, both parties requested sole custody of the children. Each party claimed to have been the primary caretaker of the children. Both parties appeared to want what was in the best interest of the children, there appeared to be no animosity between them and it appeared to the Court that the parties could work together and communicate with each other concerning the best interest of the minor children. The Court ordered joint custody. The children were placed with the Father from the 1st of the month at 6:00 p.m. until the 15th of the month at 6:00 p.m. The Mother was granted custody of the children from the 15th of each month at 6: 00 p.m. until the 1st of the month at 6:00 p.m. Each party maintained their position of wanting sole custody of the children throughout the proceedings. A guardian was appointed to represent the interest of the minor children. Prior to the final hearing, the report of the guardian was forwarded to the parties' attorneys. The parties agreed to continue the joint custody arrangement with each party having the minor children for six consecutive months out of the year. Father was granted custody of the children from June 1 at 6:00 p.m. to December 1 at 6: 00 p.m. Mother was granted the children from December 1 at 6:00 p.m. to June 1 at 6:00 p.m.

In the case of Smalls v. Smalls 2002 DR 22 157, I represented the Plaintiff Grandparents. The Grandparents (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs") filed a custody action seeking custody of their grandson (hereinafter referred to as "minor child"). The Daughter (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Daughter") of the Plaintiffs had the minor child at the age of fifteen. The Defendant Daughter and minor child continued to live in the Plaintiffs' home after the minor child's birth. The Defendant Daughter went to college in Orangeburg and the minor child was left in the care, custody and control of the Plaintiffs. In the Defendant Daughter's 3rd year of college, she moved out of the dormitory. The Plaintiffs' disapproved of the moved and requested Defendant Daughter to move back on campus. Defendant Daughter refused. The parties continued to disagree on various matters and the Defendant daughter demanded that the Plaintiffs give her physical custody of the minor child. Plaintiffs filed a custody action. Notice was provided to all parties. It is important to note that notice was provided to the alleged father and John Doe by publication because the child was born out of wedlock and the alleged father could not be served at his last known physical address. While the action was pending, the Plaintiffs discovered through discovery that Defendant Daughter had met and married a guy of the Muslim faith. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interest of the minor child. A status conference with the administrative judge, parties' attorneys and guardian ad litem was held. Case law was reviewed and discussed. The Plaintiffs decided that based on case law they would be unable to prove the Defendant Daughter unfit. They further acknowledged that although they had the most suitable and stable home, they could not overcome the presumption that returning the minor child to Defendant Daughter would be in the minor child's best interest. To avoid being denied the privilege of exercising visitation with the minor child and causing irreparable harm to the family unit, the Plaintiffs dismissed the action.

In the case of Brown v. Lewis 2005 DR 22 199, I represented the Plaintiff Father. The Father is this case filed for custody of his son due to the instability of the Mother and grave concern that the minor child was not being cared for and fed properly. The minor child was born January 21, 2003. The parties were never married to each other. However, a prior court action for child support through the Child Support Enforcement Division established that the Plaintiff was the biological father of the minor child. This fact was significant because the law states that custody of a child born out of wedlock is with the mother. However, an acknowledged father may petition the court for custody or visitation. At such proceeding, the best interest of the minor child is the determining factor S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-953 (B) (1976). Absent an agreement or court order regarding child custody, both parties are equally entitled to the custody of the minor child. S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-100 (Supp). In the case at hand, we have a child born out of wedlock to young parents who have not had the issue of custody decided between them. At the temporary hearing, custody of the minor child was awarded to the Plaintiff because of the affidavits submitted on his behalf as well as the fact that the Defendant did not appear. A guardian was not appointed in this matter due to the finances of the party and it did not appear to me that one needed to be appointed to aid the court in determining the best interest of the minor child. Through the clear and convincing testimony of Plaintiff and his witnesses as well as the evidence introduced into the record, the Court found that the Defendant Mother had not maintained a consistent and stable environment. She had four children fathered by three different men: a five year old, a three year old (the minor child of this action), a one year old and a three month old. Since giving birth to the minor child of this action, she lived with her parents. She later moved to Georgetown County with her brother and sister in law. She was living at that residence when she got served with the pleadings in the case. While the action was pending, Defendant got married and moved with her husband to an apartment complex in Hemingway. She separated from her husband and moved back to Georgetown with her brother and sister-in law. The Father, on the other hand, provided a stable, safe, nurturing, financially secured and supportive environment. His actions proved him to be a very concerned parent about the total welfare of the minor child. Based on the factors to be considered in awarding custody, the Court awarded custody to the Father.
ADOPTION

I have had the opportunity of handling numerous adoption cases during the course of my eleven year practice. In adoption cases, the rules are stringent. In the case of Elliott v. Plunkett 2001 DR 22 563, the Plaintiff was married to the mother of the child that he was seeking to adopt. The Defendant was formerly married to the wife of Plaintiff, the minor child's biological mother. Defendant, biological father, consented to the adoption and executed a Consent to Adoption and Waiver of Service" form relinquishing his parental rights, consenting to the adoption and waiving his right to be served with the Summons and Complaint, respond to the pleadings and be informed of the final hearing in the matter as required by S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-1690. For purposes of this adoption, no background, pre-placement or post-placement investigations or reports were required and no accounting of the Plaintiff's disbursements as it relates to the adoption were required because the Plaintiff was adopting a child of his spouse. S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-1820. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interest of the minor child and to accept service of the adoption petition. The final hearing was held in the matter and the court granted the adoption based on the findings in S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-1760: (1) that the child had been in the Plaintiff's custody for a period of ninety days, (2) that all necessary consents or relinquishments for adoption were obtained, (3) that notice of the adoption proceeding was given to all parties required to be given notice, and the hearing was held to the satisfaction of the court, (4) that the Petitioner is a fit and proper person and is able to care for the child and to provide for the child's welfare and the Petitioner desires to provide for the child's welfare, (5) that the Plaintiff is the stepfather of the minor child to be adopted; and therefore, no investigations or reports were required, (6) that the minor child does not own or possess any real or personal property, (7) that the Guardian ad litem believes that the adoption is in the best interest of the minor child, (8) that the adoption is in the best interest of the minor child and (9) that the minor child's name be changed and an amended birth certificate be issued by the State Registrar reflecting the new name of the adoptive child as well as the new name of the biological father free from any reference to or indication of the fact that the child was adopted.
In the case of Simmons v. Manigault and Simmons 2004 DR 10 4534, the maternal grandparents sought to adopt their daughter's son. The minor child was under the age of 12 and had lived with the maternal grandparents since birth. The Defendants each executed a Consent to Adoption and Waiver of Service" form relinquishing their parental rights, consenting to the adoption and waiving their right to be served with the Summons and Complaint, to respond to the pleadings and be informed of the final hearing in the matter as required by S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-7-1690. For purposes of this adoption, no background, pre-placement or post-placement investigations or reports were required and no accounting of the Plaintiffs' disbursements as it relates to the adoption were required because the Plaintiffs were adopting their grandchild S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-7-1820. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interest of the minor child and to accept service of the adoption petition. The final hearing was held in the matter and the court granted the adoption based on the findings in S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-7-1760: (1) the child had been in the Plaintiffs' custody for an extended period of time, (2) all necessary consents or relinquishments for adoption were obtained, (3) notice of the adoption proceeding was given to all parties required to be given notice, and the hearing was held to the satisfaction of the court, (4) the Petitioners are fit and proper persons and are able to care for the child and to provide for the child's welfare and the Petitioners desire to provide for the child's welfare, (5) that the Plaintiffs are the maternal grandparents of the minor child to be adopted; and therefore, no investigations or reports were required, (6) the minor child does not own or possess any real or personal property, (7) that the Guardian ad litem believes that the adoption is in the best interest of the minor child, (8) that the adoption is in the best interest of the minor child and (9) that an amended birth certificate be issued by the State Registrar reflecting the new name of the mother and father of the adoptive child free from any reference to or indication of the fact that the child was adopted.

In the case of Dase and Dase v. South Carolina Department of Social Services 2003 DR 22 236, the Plaintiffs sought to adopt a minor child placed in their custody by DSS. In actions involving a placement agency or person, S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-1730 requires that the complaint be filed within sixty (60) days of the adoptive placement agreement and that it must state the following: (1) the full name, age, address and place of residence of each Plaintiff and if married, the date and place of marriage; (2) when the Plaintiff acquired placement of the child and from what person or agency; (3) the date and place of birth of the child to be adopted, if known; (4) the name used for the child in the proceedings and, if a change in name is desired, the new name of the child; (5) that it is the desire of the Plaintiff to establish the relationship of parent and child between the Plaintiff and the child, and that the Plaintiff is a fit and proper person and able to care for the child and to provide for the child's welfare; (6) a full description and statement of value of all real property and of any personal property of value owned or possessed by the child; (7) facts, if any which excuse consent on the part of a parent to the adoption or which excuse notice of the adoption proceedings to a parent; (8) facts, if any which may permit placement with or adoption by nonresidents of this State, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-7-1670; (9) the existence and nature of any prior court orders known to the Plaintiff which affect the custody, support, or visitation of the child; (10) the relationship, if any, of each Plaintiff to the child; and (11) the name and address of the child placing agency or the person facilitating placement of the child for adoption, if any. Attached to the Complaint must be four items: (a) a statement of all payments of money or anything paid by Plaintiff over the past five years or agreed to be made in the future as it relates to adoption of the minor child to any person or agency that is not a disbursement made and reported pursuant to S.C. Code Laws Ann. Section 20-7-1775 at the final hearing, (b) any consent or relinquishment required by S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-1690, (c) the pre-placement investigation report and (d) the background investigation report. The Plaintiff files the statement of payments and disbursement when the adoption proceedings are filed. The Department of Social Services files the necessary consent or relinquishment, pre-placement investigation report and the background investigation report when it files its Answer to the Complaint. The above guidelines were adhered to in this case. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interest of the minor child and to accept service of the pleadings on the minor child's behalf. The final hearing was held in this matter within six months from the date of the filing of the Summons and Complaint. The Court granted the adoption and found that (1) the complaint was timely filed within sixty (60) days of the adoptive placement agreement, (2) the parental rights of the parents and John Doe were terminated by Order of the Court, (3) notice of the adoption proceeding was given to all parties required to be given notice, and the hearing was held to the satisfaction of the court, (4) the Petitioners are fit and proper persons and are able to care for the child and to provide for the child's welfare and the Petitioners desire to provide for the child's welfare, (5) the minor Defendant is under the age of twelve therefore his consent to adoption is not required (6) that the Plaintiffs are not related by blood or marriage to the minor child to be adopted; (7) the minor child does not own or possess any real or personal property, (8) that the Guardian ad litem believes that the adoption is in the best interest of the minor child and (9) that the adoption is in the best interest of the minor child. The Court further ordered that an amended birth certificate be issued by the State Registrar reflecting the new name of the mother and father of the adoptive child as well as the new name of the adoptive child free from any reference to or indication of the fact that the child was adopted.

After the final decree of adoption is entered, the relationship of parent and child and all rights, duties, and other legal consequences of the natural relationship of parent and child exist. The adoption file is sealed to be opened only by order of the court for good cause shown.
ABUSE AND NEGLECT

I have had the opportunity of being appointed and retained on several child abuse and neglect cases over the course of my eleven year practice. In the case of South Carolina Department of Social Services vs. Bone et al. 2000 DR 22 84, I was appointed to represent the Defendant Mother who was accused of child abuse and neglect as a result of her 2 1/2 year old baby's death. The Father of the deceased child was incarcerated in prison. The Mother's live-in boyfriend was also charged with homicide by child abuse. Both the Mother and the live-in boyfriend accused each other of the baby's death. They both were subsequently arrested for the death of the child. There were three other children in the home: a 5 year old and 4 year old twins. Law enforcement took emergency protective custody of the three children due to the parents' incarceration. At the time of the probable cause hearing, the paternal grandparents of the mother requested to intervene into the action to seek custody of the minor children. The paternal grandparents further agreed to submit to an investigation concerning whether any one of them or a member of their household was listed on the Central Registry of Child Abuse and Neglect, a SLED check and any other relevant department records and county sex offender registries for the past five years. The Merits hearing was held approximately thirty days after the probable cause hearing. The paternal grandparents were awarded physical custody of the minor children and a treatment plan was issued for the Defendant Parents. In the interim, Defendant Mother was sentenced to 40 years in prison for homicide by child abuse in General Session. A permanency planning hearing was held approximately one year later, the Department sought to terminate the parental rights of the biological parents and proceed with adoption due to the parents' inability to complete the treatment plan due to their incarceration. The court granted the relief. A new action was filed for termination of parental rights. The parents' parental rights were terminated.

In the case of South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Roe et al. 2001 DR 22 892, I was appointed to represent the Defendant Mother. DSS alleged that the Defendant Mother abused and neglected her two year child in that the child was harmed or threatened with harm as defined by S. C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-490 when Defendants while responsible for the child's welfare, did or allowed the following: Defendant Mother arrived home at 2:00 a.m. in the morning of October 10, 2001 and placed her two month old child and two year old child in the bed with her. The two month old child was found to be deceased in the bed the next morning. The Defendant Mother tested positive for cocaine on October 10, 2001, the morning of her infant daughter's death. The child's death was due to asphyxiation due to overlaying. DSS took Emergency Protective Custody of the surviving child pursuant to S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-610. The child was placed into foster care. Attached to the petition for emergency protective custody was the "Affidavit of Reasonable Efforts". The Department had provided Defendant Mother with drug treatment services since the death of her child and Defendant Mother continued to test positive for cocaine use. Therefore, reasonable efforts were made by the Department to avoid removal of the child from the home. At the probable cause hearing, probable cause was found for the Department to retain legal and physical custody of the minor child. A merits hearing was held approximately thirty five days later pursuant to S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-736 (Supp). The Defendant Mother and Defendant Father agreed to a finding of threat of harm of physical abuse and/or neglect. They further agreed to comply with the terms of the treatment plan. The Defendant Mother did well. She tested negative for any drug use for six months. The Department filed its Motion and Notice for Judicial Review. The judicial review hearing was held approximately six months after the merits hearing. The Department continued to offer services to the Defendant Mother. A second judicial review hearing was scheduled in December, 2002 wherein the Defendant Mother was found to be compliant with the treatment plan. A third judicial review hearing was held on April 23, 2003, the Defendant Mother still complied with the treatment plan. In an effort to re-unite the Defendant Mother with the minor child, the Department scheduled a permanency planning hearing recommending same. One day before the permanency planning hearing, the Defendant Mother tested positive for cocaine use. The Department requested that the Court grant it the right to proceed with a termination of parental rights actions. The court awarded the relief. The department filed a separate action to terminate parental rights in 2003 DR 22 631 and the same was granted.

In the case of South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Timofai et al 2006 DR 22 324, I was retained to represent the Defendant Mother. DSS alleged that the Defendant Mother committed threat of harm of physical abuse and/or neglect to her unborn child by using methadone without prescription during her pregnancy. Approximately one month prior to the birth of the baby, Defendant Mother enrolled in a methadone treatment center. The Defendant Mother gave birth to her infant daughter on May 18, 2006. Doctors diagnosed the minor child with experiencing withdrawals seventy two hours after birth. The doctor and the Defendant Mother disagreed with the treatment of the minor child. The doctor believed that the Defendant Mother was going to interfere with the treatment of the baby and thus called law enforcement. Law enforcement took emergency protective custody of the minor child on May 23, 2006 and contacted the Department of Social Services. A probable cause hearing was held on May 26, 2006. The parties agreed that the Department of Social Services would retain legal and physical custody of the minor child since the child was in the hospital experiencing withdrawal. DSS conducted hair follicle testing on Defendant Mother and the results were negative for any type of drug use. A merits hearing was held on June 16, 2006. DSS placed physical custody of the minor child with the paternal grandparents and gave Defendant Mother supervised visitation as often as she desired. The parties agreed to a treatment plan. A judicial review hearing was scheduled on September 20, 2006. The parties agreed that the Defendant Mother shall have physical and legal custody of the minor child immediately. The case will be reviewed and closed by consent of the parties once the Defendant Mother completes her treatment plan.
JUVENILE JUSTICE

I have been appointed on a significant amount of cases concerning juvenile justice such that I can competently preside over trials concerning same. I will not reference the actual case names and case numbers to protect the identity of the minor children. The rules pertaining to juvenile justice is found in S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Sections 20-7-7205 through 20-7-7815. When law enforcement takes a minor child into custody, the officer may exercise one of two options: (1) release the minor child to the parents or (2) detain the minor child. If the minor child is released to the parents, the child is referred to the Department of Juvenile Justice (hereinafter referred to as "DJJ"). Once the minor child is referred to DJJ, an intake interview is scheduled. At the intake interview, DJJ will gather background information on the child. DJJ prepares a predisposition report based on the intake interview as well as other information obtained from other persons or agencies. The results of the background information will determine the recommendation that DJJ makes to the Solicitor on a predisposition report. The predisposition report contains the following: name; address; telephone number; living arrangements of the minor child; income of minor child's supporting source; whether the child has any medical, emotional or substance abuse problems; whether the child has prior adjudicatory hearings or diversion(s); any pending charges; present offense; and most importantly, the recommendation of the intake counselor. There are three choices of recommendation based on the background of the child: (1) dismiss the charges, (2) diversion to the Youth Mentor Program (this is different for each county), or (3) prosecute the case. In the case of State of South Carolina v. JB, I was retained by the minor child's parent to represent the minor child on a charge of shoplifting at Wal-mart. When the child came into the custody of law enforcement, the officer, upon processing the paperwork, released the minor child into the custody of his parents. An intake interview at DJJ was scheduled. DJJ gathered background information from the minor child and his parents. The child was being raised in a good, sound and stable environment. He attended church on a weekly basis. The minor child was very apologetic and embarrassed by the "stupid mistake" that he had made. The shoplifting charge was his first offense. DJJ recommended dismissal of the charge to the Solicitor. The Solicitor based on the predisposition report dismissed the case.

Pursuant to S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-7215 (Supp), if a child is detained by law enforcement, the child may be detained for up to six hours in a local jail separated from the adult offenders. DJJ must be notified within this time period and the child placed in its custody. An emergency detention hearing must be held within 48 hours to determine if there is probable cause for the juvenile to be detained by DJJ until the adjudicatory hearing and/or dispositional hearing. If the Court finds, based on the showing and report of the Solicitor and DJJ, that there is probable cause to continue the detention of the juvenile, a review hearing must be scheduled within ten days following the initial juvenile hearing. The burden of proof is the same for each hearing. If the Court once again finds that probable cause exists to continue detention of the juvenile, another review hearing will be scheduled within thirty days following the ten-day hearing. A juvenile must not be detained for a period exceeding ninety days unless exigent circumstances exist as determined by the Court. The Court normally finds exigent circumstances exist in serious offenses such as felonies.

If DJJ recommends prosecution of a minor child's case, an adjudicatory hearing is scheduled. In the following two cases, DJJ recommended prosecution of the case because the minors had prior diversions and prior adjudicatory hearings. In the case of State of South Carolina v. MW, I was appointed to represent the minor child. The minor child was charged with purse snatching and carrying a weapon on school property. In the case of State of South Carolina v. TS, I was appointed to represent the minor child. The minor child was charged with shoplifting less than $1,000.00. In both cases, the minor child was advised of his right to have a trial to face his accuser. The minor child, in both cases, did not desire to have a trial and desired to plead guilty to the charges as alleged because he in fact was guilty. Due to the fact that each child pled guilty to the offenses as charged, the adjudicatory hearing disposed of the charges. The court was informed of each minor child's school records, any previous convictions, any outstanding charges and the recommendations of DJJ and the Solicitor. In both cases, the minor child was committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate period not to exceed his twenty-first (21st) birthday. However, the commitment was suspended and the juveniles were committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for a determinate period of ninety (90) days. However, the commitment was suspended and the juveniles were placed on probation for a period of nine months under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice with imposed terms of probation.

If the judge determines at the adjudicatory hearing the juvenile needs to be committed to DJJ for placement in a corrective environment pursuant to S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-7810 (Supp), the child must be sent for evaluation by DJJ for a period not exceeding forty five days. If the child has been previously evaluated and the results are available to the court or if the child has been discharged from probation within the past year and the result of his previous evaluation is available to the court at the adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile may be committed to DJJ without another evaluation. A child may be committed to DJJ without an evaluation if the sentence is determinate for a period not exceeding ninety days. "

Ms. Holmes reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   I never appeared in federal court until this year. The case was scheduled for trial on 09-20-06, but was settled. I appeared for the roster meeting and settlement conference before Judge Duffy;

(b)   State:     I have appeared in state court for domestic hearings/trials, roster meetings for civil matters, civil trials, roll call for criminal matters, criminal trials, probate court chemical dependency or estate hearings, master-in-equity hearings on average of 5-10 times a month."

Ms. Holmes reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       24%;

(b)   Criminal:     1%;

(c)   Domestic:   75%."

Ms. Holmes reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       2%;

(b)   Non-jury:   98%."

Ms. Holmes provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Holmes's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Gallant - Taylor v. Taylor, 2002 DR 22 156 was an annulment action based on non-consummation of marriage and fraud. The parties met in 1995 and never engaged in sexual intercourse while dating. Plaintiff Wife is a Christian saved by Christ and Defendant Husband is a Minister. The parties believed that sexual intercourse was an act reserved for married couples. Thus, the couple agreed not to engage in intercourse until married. The parties were married on December 29, 2001 in Georgetown County. Throughout the marriage, Defendant Husband offered excuses as to why he could not engage in sexual intercourse with Plaintiff Wife. Defendant Husband's continuous refusal to engage in sexual intercourse with Plaintiff Wife led to the parties' separation on May 3, 2002 in Columbia, SC. Plaintiff Wife filed an action for annulment. The court found based on the testimony of Plaintiff Wife that: (1) the parties agreed that intimacy was appropriate when two parties were married; (2) the Plaintiff Wife expected that the parties would consummate their relationship once they were married; (3) the Plaintiff Wife was reasonable in expecting that the parties would consummate their relationship once they were married; (4) the parties never engaged in sexual relations during marriage; (5) the Plaintiff is entitled to have her marriage annulled based on non-consummation of marriage and (6) the Plaintiff is entitled to have her marriage annulled based on fraud;

(b)   Stephens, Respondent v. Stephens, Appellant Unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP 077 was significant because the Court of Appeals agreed with my position that the trial court erred in apportioning the marital debts of the parties. At the time of the commencement of marital litigation, the total credit card debt of the parties was $24,927.30. Of this total debt, the trial court ordered Husband to pay $22,065.07 and ordered Wife to pay $2,862.23. The trial court, in its order, failed to address any of the factors as they relate to apportionment of marital debt. The Court found the Husband at fault in the break up of the marriage and Wife was granted a divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty. Although fault is one factor for the court to address in equitably dividing marital property, it does not justify a severe penalty. Morris v. Morris 335 S.C. 525, 517 S.E.2d 720 (Ct. App. 1999). The Wife argued that because she was given the marital home by the Husband and there exists a mortgage of $13,000.00 on the home, the award is fair. However, the Wife received the marital home as part of the settlement agreement. There was no indication that the Court considered this debt in apportioning the debt. The Court of Appeals was unable to discern from the record the family court's basis for its apportionment of the credit card debt. The case was remanded for further consideration and discussion of the factors set forth in S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-472 (Supp). The Court of Appeals further stated that the Court may adjust the apportionment of the debt if it deems such an adjustment is appropriate;

(c)   Moore v. Moore 2002 DR 22 156 was a two-day contested trial concerning custody of the parties' minor children, alimony and attorney fees. A guardian was appointed to represent the interests of the minor children. I represented the Defendant Father. The Court awarded custody of the parties two minor children to the Father. In determining custody, the Family Court considered the character, fitness, attitude and inclination on the part of each parent as they impact or relate to the child. Paparella v. Paparella, 340 S.C. 186, 531 S.E.2d 297 (Ct. App. 2000). The Court found the Father to be more actively involved in the children's daily life. The Court also found the Father to be the primary caretaker of the minor children. The Court was guided in awarding custody to the primary caretaker by the cases of Smith v. Smith 294 S.C. 194, 363 S.E.2d 404 (Ct. App. 1987) and Epperly v. Epperly 312 S.C. 411, 440 S.E.2d 884 (1994). Mother was denied alimony. The factors were not proven. Mother was also ordered to pay a portion of Father's attorneys fees based on the factors in Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 403 S.E. 2d 313 (1991) and clarified in EDM v. TAM 307 S.C. 471, 415 S.E.2d 812 (1992): the difficulty of the matter, favorable results obtained, reasonableness of time and costs incurred, ability of the Mother to pay attorney fees and inability of the Father to pay attorney fees if no assistance is provided;

(d)   Harrell v. Gubicza 2004 DR 26 2251 was a two-day contested trial concerning custody of the parties' minor child. A guardian was appointed to represent the interests of the minor child. I represented the Plaintiff Father. The Father brought this action to save his daughter from the immoral environment of the Defendant and Defendant's Mother home. The parties were never married and the child was born out of wedlock. The law states that custody of a child born out of wedlock is with the mother. However, an acknowledged father may petition the court for custody or visitation. At such proceeding, the best interest of the minor child is the determining factor S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-953 (B) (1976). Absent an agreement or court order regarding child custody, both parties are equally entitled to the custody of the minor child. S.C. Code of Laws Ann. Section 20-7-100 (Supp). In this case we had a child born out of wedlock to young parents who had not had the issue of custody decided between them. At the temporary hearing, custody of the minor child was awarded to the Plaintiff because of the affidavits submitted on his behalf as well as the fact that the Defendant did not appear. At the conclusion of the merits hearing, the Court undertook the awesome task of looking into the past of each party and predicting which of the two available environments would advance the best interest of the child and bring about the best adjusted mature individual. Cook v. Cobb 271 S.C. 136, 142, 245 S.E.2d 612, 615 (1978). The Court awarded custody of the minor child to the Father;

(e)   Pushia vs. Pushia 2005 DR 22 470 was a divorce matter wherein the Plaintiff Wife sought alimony. The parties were married for twenty years. For most of the marriage, the Plaintiff Wife was a homemaker. The Defendant Husband's monthly income was $5869. The Plaintiff Wife's imputed monthly income was $893. The Defendant Husband was ordered to pay child support for the parties' two minor children in a semi-monthly amount of $392.50 plus the 5% court costs. The Court found that although the Plaintiff Wife was a homemaker, she had a high school education, nursing degree, was very computer literate, skilled in word processing and had the probability of good opportunity. The court considered the following in awarding rehabilitative alimony: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the age, health, and education of the supported spouse; (3) the parties' accustomed standard of living; (4) the ability of the supporting spouse to meet his needs while meeting the needs of the supported spouse; (5) the time necessary for the supported spouse to acquire job training or skills; (6) the likelihood that the supported spouse will successfully complete retraining; and (7) the supported spouse's likelihood of success in the job market. Plaintiff testified that she desired to go back to school to obtain a dual degree in Medical Office Clerical Assistant and Office Systems Technology at Horry Georgetown Technical College. While pursuing this career, Plaintiff Wife would need financial support to assist her with the college expenses and the household expenses. The Court further considered the additional schooling required by the Plaintiff Wife as well as the time necessary for the Plaintiff Wife to look for and obtain employment after school to sufficiently support herself. The Court awarded the sum of $1000 per month for 5 years, beginning June 15, 2006 and continuing the 15th of each month thereafter. The Court believed this amount to be sufficient rehabilitative alimony for the Defendant Husband to pay and for the Plaintiff Wife to receive. The amount would allow the Plaintiff Wife to meet her expenses at approximately the same level during the marriage. The Defendant Husband was the principal wage earner and provided the family with a comfortable standard of living. Defendant Husband earned $60,000 per year most of which was earned at his principal employment with International Paper Company. The Court found that Defendant Husband would have no difficulty maintaining his standard of living by payment of $1000.00 to Plaintiff Wife on a monthly basis. The award was intended to encourage Plaintiff Wife to become self-supporting after the divorce from Defendant Husband. I believe this to be the trend of the court in these type cases."

The following is Ms. Holmes's account of the civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Sheryl L. Stephens, Respondent v. Michael Anthony Stephens, Appellant. Appeal from Georgetown County Haskell T. Abbott III, Family Court Judge. Unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP-077. Submitted November 14, 2001-Filed February 11, 2002. Affirmed in Part; Remanded in Part. In this case, I represented the Appellant;

(b)   Ralph Hoffman, Appellant v. Lola Watts, Respondent, Appeal from Georgetown County Master-in-Equity, Benjamin H. Culbertson. Affirmed. Unpublished Opinion. In this case, I represented the Respondent."

Ms. Holmes has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Holmes's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Holmes to be well qualified for the position on the Family Court. The Committee commented that "Jan B. Holmes of Georgetown was a pleasure to interview. She is well qualified with a great deal of experience and a good grasp of the issues and subject."

Ms. Holmes is married to Cleveland Bernard Holmes. They have two children.

Ms. Holmes reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Georgetown County Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Black Lawyers Association."

Ms. Holmes provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Advisory Board Member of the Salvation Army (Treasurer 2004);

(b)   Board Member of Georgetown County Chamber of Commerce;

(c)   Board Member of Kids Voting, USA for Georgetown County;

(d)   Georgetown County Women's Democratic Party (President, July 2000 - June 2001);

(e)   Board Member of the Friends of the Kaminski House;

(f)   Board Member of Friends Leading Youth (FLY);

(g)   Board Member of Kids Voting, USA-Georgetown County;

(h)   Kensington Elementary School Improvement Council;

(i)     Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.;

(j)     Women Missionary Society of the AME Church (3rd Vice President 2005 - Present);

Membership and Recruitment Chair (2004);

Non-governmental Organization (NGO) Representative (2002 - 2004)."

Ms. Holmes additionally provided:

"I am a diligent and hard worker. I place pride in everything that I do. In my practice of law, there are no duties that I can not perform in the absence of my office staff. I research relevant case law for all cases tried and prepare all orders as directed by the Court. I have no doubt about my ability to be an effective, a competent and a respectable judge. These are all values that I hold dear to my heart. I am the mother of two children (5 and 2). I manage to effectively run my household and efficiently supervise two employees at the law office. I can handle the pressure of a rigorous schedule and look forward to the opportunity to serve the public as a Judge of Family Court."

The Commission commented that Ms. Holmes has a great deal of experience in domestic law. They also were impressed with Ms. Holmes's leadership and active involvement in her local community. They found her qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court bench.

Henry T. Woods
Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Woods since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Woods meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judge Woods was born in 1945. He is 61 years old and a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Judge Woods provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Woods.

Judge Woods demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Woods reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures

Judge Woods reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Woods reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Woods to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Woods described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"I have attended all mandatory continuing legal education courses for Family Court judges and several other Family Court related courses as my schedule allowed."
2002:

Family Court Judges Conference, 5/1/2002, 6.00;

Family Law Section II, 1/25/2002, 3.00;

Judicial Conference, 8/22/2002, 8.00.
2003:

Family Court Judges Conference, 4/30/2003, 6.50;

SC Bar Family Law - Part I, 1/24/2003, 3.00;

SC Bar Family Law - Part II, 1/24/2003, 3.00;

Judicial Conference, 8/21/2003, 7.50;

SCTLA 2003 Annual Convention, 8/7/2003, 12.00.
2004:

Family Court Judges Conference, 4/28/2004, 5.00;

SC Workers Comp. Update, 6/18/2004, 1.00;

Judicial Conference, 8/19/2004, 7.25;

Family Law Section Meeting, 1/23/2004, 3.00;

Judicial Oath of Office, 8/19/2004, 1.00;

SC Family Court Bench/Bar, 12/3/2004, 6.00;

Seminar for Chief Judges for, 12/10/2004, 5.50.
2005:

SC Bar Family Law Section, 1/21/2005, 3.00;

Family Court Judges Conference, 4/27/2005, 6.00;

Annual Judicial Conference, 8/24/2005, 7.75;

SC Family Court Bench/Bar, 12/2/2005, 6.00.
2006:

SC Bar Family Law Section, 1/27/2006, 3.00;

Family Court Judges Conference, 4/26/2006, 6.00;

Mini Summit on Justice for Children, 8/22/2006, 7.25;

Annual Judicial Conference, 8/23/2006, 9.00.

"I have attended the Bench Bar Conference each year in December. I have also attended a four week course presented by the United States Justice Department which reviewed the criteria for the establishment of juvenile drug courts and the related psychological and treatment options for juveniles who are eligible to participate in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit drug court."

Judge Woods reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have appeared before numerous college and high school classes to talk on various aspects of the law and its practice. I also assisted in teaching a high school law course sponsored by the York County Bar Association."

Judge Woods reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Woods did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Woods did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Woods has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Woods was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Woods reported he has never been rated by Martindale - Hubbell.

The following is Judge Woods' explanation and further information about his reputation:

"My father's firm has represented a clientele who were not exposed to Martindale-Hubbell and he felt that listing was not important to his practice but rather relied solely on his reputation."

Judge Woods reported the following military service:
"August 1967 - 1975, Captain, United States Army Reserve, Inactive Reserve, Honorable Discharge."

Judge Woods reported he has held the following public office:
"York County Rural Fire Commission: 1972-1982: Appointed by County Council;
Rock Hill City Council: 1982-1994: Elected;

York County Natural Gas Authority: 1995-1999: Appointed by Governor."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Woods appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Woods appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Woods was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I joined my father's law practice on January 2, 1971, and we formed a partnership named Woods & Woods. This firm continued until my father's retirement in 1999. I assumed the trial practice in 1975-1977. The firm evolved from a contracts, probate, social security disability, and real estate practice into a primarily litigation practice while continuing to be a small general practice firm. During the last ten years of practice I concentrated my practice in civil trials, both on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants, including personal injury, criminal defense, and family law including juvenile defense. I continued to practice in Probate Court, before local boards and commissions, and had a limited practice in real estate contracts and closings. I was elected to my present position in February of 1999, and was sworn on March 26, 1999."

Judge Woods reported he has held the following judicial office:
"March 26, 1999 to present. Seat #2 Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit. Elected February 8, 1999."

Judge Woods provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   White v. White;

(b)   Medearis v. Medearis;

(c)   DSS v. Moore;

(d)   Ingle v. Ingle;

(e)   Smith v. Smith."

Judge Woods reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"Rock Hill District #3 School Board: September 1971: Three at-large seats available, 5th of 12 candidates.
Probate Judge for York County: 1994: Lost in primary."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Woods's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Woods to be "qualified for the position and [had] no reservations concerning his re-election."

Judge Woods is married to Gale Teaster Woods. He does not have any children.

Judge Woods reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   York County Bar Association: Past President, Past Treasurer;

(c)   South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges."

Judge Woods provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Rock Hill Kiwanis Club;

(b)   The Citadel Alumni Association;

(c)   The Citadel Brigadier Foundation;

(d)   Oakland Avenue Presbyterian Church."

The Commission commented on Judge Woods' reputation as a Family Court judge having a good judicial temperament. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.

John D. McLeod
Administrative Law Court, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge McLeod since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge McLeod meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the Administrative Law Court.

Judge McLeod was born in 1942. He is 64 years old and a resident of Winnsboro, South Carolina. Judge McLeod provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1967.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge McLeod.

Judge McLeod demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge McLeod reported that he has made $16.00 in campaign expenditures for paper and printer ink.

Judge McLeod reported 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge McLeod reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge McLeod to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge McLeod described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Annual Mtg. and Seminar, SC Mun. Atty's Assn., Nov. 29, 2001;

(b)   S.C. Foreclosure and Repossession, Feb. 22, 2002;

(c)   Exempted from further CLE because of age."

Judge McLeod reported that he has taught the following law-related course: '

"Within the last calendar year, I spoke on Administrative Law at the 'Bridge the Gap' Seminar held by the University of South Carolina School of Law for graduating seniors."

Judge McLeod reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge McLeod did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge McLeod did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge McLeod has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge McLeod was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge McLeod reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge McLeod reported the following military service:
"Fall of 1961 thru February 27, 1964; United States Naval Reserve; Seaman Apprentice; Serial # 590 36 21; Honorable Discharge."
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge McLeod appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge McLeod appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge McLeod was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I appeared only before Federal Administrative Law Judges (Social Security matters) usually before being elected as a state Administrative Law Judge. More of my experience has come from my time on the bench rather than before it."

Judge McLeod provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Too Tacky Partnership v. SCDHEC and Mayo Read, 05-ALJ-07-0165-CC;

(b)   International Center II, LLC v. Berkeley County Assessor, 05-ALJ-17-0235-CC;

(c)   S.C. Dept. of Motor Vehicles v. Matthew William Boyle, 06-ALJ-21-0340-AP;

(d)   Mary S. Anderson v. S.C. Budget and Control Bd. S.C., Retirement System, 06-ALJ-30-0008-CC;

(e)   Thomas A. Moore, Jr., M.D. License No.19409 v. S.C Dept. of LLR, Bd. of Medical Examiners, 05-ALJ-11-0503-AP."

Judge McLeod reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"Ran unsuccessfully for the S.C. House of Representatives in 1972."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge McLeod's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge McLeod to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Administrative Law Court bench."

Judge McLeod is married to Virginia Martin Ingram. He has two children.

Judge McLeod reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;

(b)   S.C. Assn. of Regulatory Law Attorneys (SCARLA)."

Judge McLeod provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Mount Zion Society - (educational)-no longer a member;

(b)   St. Andrews Society of the City of Columbia - (social-charitable-educational)-no longer a member."

Judge McLeod additionally provided:
"Eagle Scout, Elder Sion Presbyterian Church, formerly served on S.C. Bar Committee on Practice and Procedure."

The Commission commented on the smooth transition Judge McLeod has made from the private practice of law to the Administrative Law Court. They noted his hardworking reputation on the bench. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Administrative Law Court.

CONCLUSION

The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:

John W. Kittredge, Court of Appeals, Seat 3
John C. Hayes III, Court of Appeals, Seat 4
Robert N. Jenkins, Sr., Court of Appeals, Seat 4
Paula H. Thomas, Court of Appeals, Seat 4
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
J.C. "Buddy" Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit,
Seat 1
Anne Gue Jones, Family Court, First Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Dale Moore Gable, Family Court, Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
W. Jeffrey Young, Family Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Gordon B. Jenkinson, Family Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Jamie Lee Murdock, Jr., Family Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Leslie K. Riddle, Family Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Lillie C. Hart, Family Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Rolly W. Jacobs, Family Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Brian M. Gibbons, Family Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Georgia V. Anderson, Family Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
James F. Fraley, Jr., Family Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Joseph W. McGowan III, Family Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Paul W. Garfinkel, Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Wayne M. Creech, Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4
Barry W. Knobel, Family Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Tommy B. Edwards, Family Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Deborah Neese, Family Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Robert E. Newton, Family Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Richard W. Chewning III, Family Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Mary E. Buchan, Family Court, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
A Eugene Morehead III, Family Court, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
Seat 2
Gerald C. Smoak, Jr., Family Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Robert S. Armstrong, Family Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Joe M. Crosby, Family Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Charles Reuben Goude, Family Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
Seat 1
Jan B. Holmes, Family Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Henry T. Woods, Family Court, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court, Seat 2

Respectfully submitted,
Representative F. G. Delleney, Jr.   Senator James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Senator Robert Ford   Representative Doug Smith
Senator Ray Cleary   Representative Fletcher N. Smith, Jr.
Professor John P. Freeman   Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester   Mr. Richard S. Fisher

Received as information.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

On motion of Rep. DELLENEY, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 3213 (Word version) -- Reps. Delleney, W. D. Smith and F. N. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2007, AS THE TIME TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEAT 4, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 4, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007; AND TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2007.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the Senate and the House of Representatives shall meet in joint assembly in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 12:00 noon to elect a successor to the Honorable John W. Kittredge, Judge of the Court of Appeals, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., Judge of the Court of Appeals, Seat 4, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable J. Derham Cole, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Deadra L. Jefferson, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Anne Gue Jones, Judge of the Family Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Dale Moore Gable, Judge of the Family Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable W. Jeffrey Young, Judge of the Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable R. Wright Turbeville, Judge of the Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Jamie Lee Murdock, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Leslie K. Riddle, Judge of the Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Rolly W. Jacobs, Judge of the Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Brian M. Gibbons, Judge of the Family Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Georgia V. Anderson, Judge of the Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable James F. Fraley, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Joseph W. McGowan III, Judge of the Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Paul W. Garfinkel, Judge of the Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Wayne M. Creech, Judge of the Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Barry W. Knobel, Judge of the Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Tommy B. Edwards, Judge of the Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable C. David Sawyer, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Richard W. Chewning III, Judge of the Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Mary E. Buchan, Judge of the Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable A. Eugene Morehead III, Judge of the Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Gerald C. Smoak, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Robert S. Armstrong, Judge of the Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable H. E. Bonnoitt, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2007; to elect a successor to the Honorable Henry T. Woods, Judge of the Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007; and to elect a successor to the Honorable John D. McLeod, Judge of the Administrative Law Court, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2007.

Be it further resolved that all nominations must be made by the Chairman of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and that no further nominating or seconding speeches may be made by members of the General Assembly on behalf of any candidate.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 3214 (Word version) -- Rep. Witherspoon: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 48-34-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES, INJURY, OR LOSS CAUSED BY PRESCRIBED FIRE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT GROSS NEGLIGENCE RATHER THAN NEGLIGENCE MUST BE PROVEN BEFORE A PROPERTY OWNER OR LESSEE OR HIS AGENT OR EMPLOYEE CONDUCTING A PRESCRIBED BURN IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES, INJURY, OR LOSS.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3215 (Word version) -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 TO CHAPTER 41, TITLE 44 TO ENACT THE "BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT" SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY INFANT WHO SURVIVES AN ABORTION RESULTING IN HIS OR HER LIVE BIRTH MUST BE GIVEN REASONABLE AND IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE, TO PROVIDE THAT BEFORE AN ABORTION MAY BE PERFORMED ON A WOMAN WHOSE UNBORN CHILD IS VIABLE, THE PHYSICIAN MUST CERTIFY THAT THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE WOMAN AND THAT THE ABORTION METHOD TO BE USED MUST BE THE METHOD MOST LIKELY TO PRESERVE THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF THE UNBORN CHILD AND TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION, TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN PERFORMING AN ABORTION OF A VIABLE UNBORN CHILD A PHYSICIAN, OTHER THAN THE PHYSICIAN PERFORMING THE ABORTION, MUST BE PRESENT AND MUST PROVIDE IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE TO THE INFANT AT BIRTH, AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ARTICLE IN THE CASE OF A MEDICAL EMERGENCY THAT THREATENS THE LIFE OR PERMANENT PHYSICAL HEALTH OF THE WOMAN.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3216 (Word version) -- Rep. Witherspoon: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX ACT INCLUDING INCOME TAX CREDITS, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-3625 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS A TAXPAYER THAT HARVESTS TIMBER, OR ALLOWS OTHERS TO HARVEST TIMBER, FROM ITS LAND LOCATED IN SOUTH CAROLINA, MAY CLAIM A CREDIT AGAINST ITS STATE INCOME TAXES EQUAL TO FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER ACRE FOR MAINTAINING AN ENHANCED RIPARIAN BUFFER ALONG STREAMS AND RIVERS ADJOINING THE TIMBER HARVEST.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means

H. 3218 (Word version) -- Rep. Harrison: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 61-4-1115, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN IMPORTERS AND FOREIGN BREWERS OF BEER WHICH ARE BINDING ON SUCCESSOR IMPORTERS, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SO THAT THE PROVISIONS ALSO APPLY TO DOMESTIC BRANDS OF BEER AND TO STIPULATE THAT WHEN A PRODUCER OR PRIMARY AMERICAN SOURCE OF SUPPLY TRANSFERS, CONVEYS, OR ASSIGNS A BRAND OF BEER TO ANOTHER PRODUCER OR PRIMARY AMERICAN SOURCE OF SUPPLY, THE ASSIGNMENT OF TERRITORY OF THAT BRAND TO A WHOLESALER, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, IS BINDING ON THE SUCCESSOR PRODUCER OR PRIMARY AMERICAN SOURCE OF SUPPLY.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry

H. 3219 (Word version) -- Rep. Harrison: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-600, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXCEPTION PROVIDING THAT CONTESTED CASES ARISING UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT ARE NOT TO BE HEARD BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; TO AMEND SECTION 41-15-310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION HEARING OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONTESTED CASES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PARTY AGGRIEVED BY A CITATION, PENALTY, OR ABATEMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, DIVISION OF LABOR MAY REQUEST A CONTESTED CASE HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT AND TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR APPEARING IN AND APPEALING SUCH CASES; AND TO REPEAL ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 15, TITLE 41, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REVIEW BOARD.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3224 (Word version) -- Reps. Miller and Anderson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-75-310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND TERMS PERTAINING TO WIND AND HAIL INSURANCE, SO AS TO AMEND THE TERM "COASTAL AREA" TO INCLUDE ALL AREAS IN COUNTIES BORDERING THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND TO DELETE THE DEFINITION FOR "SEACOAST AREA"; TO AMEND SECTION 38-75-460, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE TO EXPAND AREAS IN WHICH THE SOUTH CAROLINA WIND AND HAIL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION MUST PROVIDE ESSENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE, SO AS TO MAKE CHANGES REFLECTIVE OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF "COASTAL AREA" AND THE DELETION OF THE TERM "SEACOAST AREA".
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry

H. 3225 (Word version) -- Reps. Hart, Rutherford and Sellers: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 17-15-170, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FORFEITURE OF BOND AND RECOGNIZANCE PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO ESTREAT THE BOND OR RECOGNIZANCE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS AFTER THE PERSON'S FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3226 (Word version) -- Rep. Clemmons: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-740, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REPRESENTATION OF A PERSON BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL BEFORE A GOVERNMENTAL BODY, SO AS TO REQUIRE A STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL PUBLIC OFFICIAL INVOLVED IN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO COMPLY WITH RECUSAL REQUIREMENTS, TO ALLOW A PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO REMAIN IN OFFICE IF THE RECUSAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, AND TO PROHIBIT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY FROM REMOVING OR DISALLOWING A PERSON TO SERVE IN OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT BASED ON RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, FAMILIAL STATUS, DISABILITY, OR LEGAL OCCUPATION.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3227 (Word version) -- Rep. J. E. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1040, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THREATENING THE LIFE, PERSON, OR FAMILY OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, TEACHER, OR PRINCIPAL, SO AS TO INCLUDE DIRECT OR INDIRECT THREATS.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3228 (Word version) -- Rep. J. E. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-870 SO AS TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO GIVE AN EMPLOYEE REASONABLE TIME OFF FROM WORK TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3229 (Word version) -- Rep. Scarborough: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-121-90 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE PRAYER AT THE CITADEL.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3230 (Word version) -- Rep. Scarborough: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-11-13 SO AS TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM ACCEPTING MORE THAN ONE NOMINATION FOR THE SAME OFFICE.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3231 (Word version) -- Rep. Scarborough: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 15-1-340 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE OWNER OF REAL PROPERTY IS NOT LIABLE IN A CIVIL ACTION FOR ACTS OR OMISSIONS CAUSING INJURY TO A PERSON WHO TRESPASSES ON HIS PROPERTY TO COMMIT A CRIME OR WHEN REASONABLE FORCE IS USED TO REMOVE A PERSON WHO IS TRESPASSING ON HIS PROPERTY.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3232 (Word version) -- Reps. Breeland, Mack, Anderson, R. Brown, Clyburn, Hart, Hosey, Howard, Jefferson, Scott and Williams: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-7750, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF FRATERNITY AND SORORITY SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FEES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION MAY BE USED FOR ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIPS, OR TO FUND PROGRAMS THAT SEND BOYS AND GIRLS WHO ARE AT LEAST EIGHT YEARS OLD AND NOT MORE THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OLD TO SUMMER CAMP, OR BOTH.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works

H. 3233 (Word version) -- Rep. Scarborough: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-23-295, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES ON A WATERCRAFT AND OUTBOARD MOTOR TO BE CURRENT BEFORE THE TITLE TO THESE ITEMS MAY BE TRANSFERRED, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROHIBITION ON THE TRANSFER OF TITLE APPLIES ONLY FOR PROPERTY TAXES DUE FOR PROPERTY TAXES FOR PROPERTY TAX YEARS BEGINNING AFTER 1999 AND TO ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY LANGUAGE AND MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES, TO PROVIDE THAT USED WATERCRAFT AND USED OUTBOARD MOTORS OBTAINED FROM A LICENSED DEALER ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 3, 2000, ARE FREE OF THE LIEN FOR THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR PROPERTY TAX YEARS BEFORE 2000, AND TO PROVIDE THAT NO REFUNDS OF PROPERTY TAXES ON WATERCRAFT AND OUTBOARD MOTORS ARE PAYABLE FOR PROPERTY TAX YEARS BEFORE 2000 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND TO REPEAL ACT 451 OF 2002 RELATING TO TRANSFER OF TITLES TO WATERCRAFT IN LEXINGTON COUNTY.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means

H. 3234 (Word version) -- Rep. J. E. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-48 SO AS TO REQUIRE INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR COLORECTAL CANCER EARLY DETECTION FOR CERTAIN PERSONS.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry

H. 3235 (Word version) -- Rep. J. E. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA TORT CLAIMS ACT, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE GUARD IN CERTAIN DEFINITIONS, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT AN EMPLOYEE INCLUDES MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD, MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE GUARD, AND PERSONS ACTING ON BEHALF OR IN SERVICE OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT WITHOUT PAY OR COMPENSATION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS TO THE WAIVER OF IMMUNITY IN THE STATE TORT CLAIMS ACT, SO AS TO INCLUDE CERTAIN HOME SECURITY AND COUNTER-TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN THE EXEMPTION RELATING TO ACTIVITIES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE GUARD.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

H. 3236 (Word version) -- Rep. J. E. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-2972 SO AS TO BAN THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN CHILDCARE FACILITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED, REGISTERED, OR APPROVED EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CASES AND TO DEFINE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

HOUSE RESOLUTION

The following was introduced:

H. 3217 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrison, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hinson, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND TRACEY C. GREEN, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, FOR HIS MERITORIOUS SERVICE TO THE COMMITTEE AND HIS DEDICATION TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HIM IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

Whereas, Tracey C. Green of Lexington County joined the House Judiciary Committee as Chief Counsel in January 2005 after distinguishing himself in private practice and in the Attorney General's Office; and

Whereas, Mr. Green quickly earned the reputation as the bright young attorney that the committee was lucky to have lured over from across the Capitol Complex; and

Whereas, an accountant and an attorney by trade, he was well suited for managing the details of the daily work of the committee and the House of Representatives. Mr. Green possessed a keen eye for the minutia involved in the drafting and shepherding of legislation which made him a tremendous asset to the committee; and

Whereas, even though his tenure included just two Legislative Sessions, he certainly made his mark with his outstanding contributions to legislation regarding eminent domain and other constitutional matters in particular; and

Whereas, respected by members and staff alike, he was known for his superior intellect, or apparently "nine-pound brain", and for the big words he was so fond of using; and

Whereas, in addition to his intellectual acumen, Mr. Green was also known for his frugality and the fact that he seemed to only own three suits - and Roz sure loved to see him in the blue one; and

Whereas, his work ethic and many and varied contributions to the House of Representatives' team are to be commended and will not be forgotten; however, he was not just a dedicated public servant but is also a devoted family man. He is the beloved husband of wife, Anne Marie, and together they have three wonderful children: Colton, Reagan, and Trevor; and

Whereas, Mr. Green cherishes his family time, and he and Anne Marie attend Lexington Baptist Church where they are active and involved members giving their three children the immeasurable gift of a solid Christian foundation; and

Whereas, the Members of the Judiciary Committee and the South Carolina House of Representatives express their gratitude to Mr. Green for his hard work and the professionalism with which he did the work of the committee and House and wish him future success in the private sector. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the Members of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina commend Tracey C. Green, Former Chief Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, for his meritorious service to the committee and his dedication to the South Carolina House of Representatives and extend best wishes to him in all his future endeavors.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Tracey C. Green of Lexington County.

The Resolution was adopted.

HOUSE RESOLUTION

On motion of Rep. TALLEY, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 3220 (Word version) -- Rep. Talley: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR TO THE STUDENTS AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND, AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOGNIZING THEM FOR A DEMONSTRATION OF THEIR UNIQUE ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the Members of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, extend the privilege of the floor to the students and school officials of the South Carolina School for the Deaf and the Blind, at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker, for the purpose of recognizing them for a demonstration of their unique accomplishments.

The Resolution was adopted.

HOUSE RESOLUTION

The following was introduced:

H. 3221 (Word version) -- Rep. Allen: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND CONGRATULATE AMBERLY DANIELLE NESBITT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY ON HER MOST IMPRESSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A SPRINTER FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA WOMEN'S TRACK TEAM AND TO COMMEND HER FOR HER ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE.

The Resolution was adopted.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

The following was introduced:

H. 3222 (Word version) -- Reps. Pinson, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Gambrell, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hinson, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR THE MEMBERS OF THE 218TH HEAVY SEPARATE BRIGADE, THE LARGEST OF THE MAJOR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD, AND TO WISH THEM WELL IN THEIR YEAR-LONG DEPLOYMENT TO AFGHANISTAN, WHICH BEGINS IN FEBRUARY 2007.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

The following was introduced:

H. 3223 (Word version) -- Reps. Scarborough, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hinson, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND CONGRATULATING THE JAMES ISLAND CHRISTIAN SCHOOL LADY LIONS SOCCER TEAM FOR WINNING THE 2006 SCISA A-AA STATE SOCCER CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

ROLL CALL

The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:

Agnew                  Alexander              Allen
Anderson               Anthony                Bales
Ballentine             Bannister              Barfield
Battle                 Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Bowers                 Brady
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Cato
Ceips                  Chalk                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Cotty
Crawford               Dantzler               Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Frye
Funderburk             Gambrell               Gullick
Haley                  Hamilton               Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Hart
Harvin                 Hayes                  Herbkersman
Hinson                 Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Huggins
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Kennedy                Kirsh                  Knight
Leach                  Limehouse              Littlejohn
Loftis                 Lowe                   Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   Mulvaney               J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Shoopman               Simrill                Skelton
D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Vick                   Viers
Walker                 Weeks                  White
Whitmire               Williams               Witherspoon
Young

STATEMENT OF ATTENDANCE

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Thursday, January 11.

Fletcher Smith                    James E. Smith
Gloria Haskins                    Jackson "Seth" Whipper
Jerry Govan

Total Present--120

DOCTOR OF THE DAY

Announcement was made that Dr. Gerald Harmon of Beaufort is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.

CO-SPONSORS ADDED AND REMOVED

In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
"5.2   Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed; every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper, its prayer or substance; and, in every instance, the name of the member presenting any paper shall be endorsed and the papers shall be presented by the member to the Speaker at the desk. A member may add his name to a bill or resolution or a co-sponsor of a bill or resolution may remove his name at any time prior to the bill or resolution receiving passage on second reading. The member or co-sponsor shall notify the Clerk of the House in writing of his desire to have his name added or removed from the bill or resolution. The Clerk of the House shall print the member's or co-sponsor's written notification in the House Journal. The removal or addition of a name does not apply to a bill or resolution sponsored by a committee."

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   G. R. SMITH

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HAMILTON

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   DAVENPORT

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   MITCHELL

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   MILLER

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   BATTLE

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   THOMPSON

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   J. R. SMITH

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   J. H. NEAL

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   M. A. PITTS

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   BALLENTINE

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   CEIPS

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   FUNDERBURK

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   BRADY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   WHITE

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   KIRSH

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   JEFFERSON

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   VICK

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   MCLEOD

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HARRELL

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   LITTLEJOHN

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   LUCAS

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   BRANHAM

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   DELLENEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3045 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   GULLICK

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3002 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3003 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3008 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3011 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3011 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3034 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3035 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3013 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3018 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3024 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3033 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3170 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   BOWEN

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3042 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3046 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3049 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3059 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3060 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3063 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3069 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3091 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3093 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3094 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3095 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3097 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3100 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3101 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3117 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3119 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3121 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3121 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3122 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3122 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3123 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3124 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3125 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3125 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3126 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3126 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3127 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3127 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3128 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3128 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3138 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3139 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3195 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3196 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3199 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3202 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3211 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3138 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   HALEY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3138 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   GULLICK

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3147 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3148 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3149 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3152 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3157 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3158 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3161 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR ADDED

Bill Number:   H. 3165 (Word version)
Date:   ADD:
01/11/07   COTTY

CO-SPONSOR REMOVED

Bill Number:   H. 3151 (Word version)
Date:   REMOVE:
01/11/07   COBB-HUNTER

ORDERED TO THIRD READING

The following Bill was taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

H. 3209 (Word version) -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 456 OF 2006, RELATING TO THE CREATION, MEMBERS, AND DUTIES OF THE CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE TASK FORCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE TASK FORCE SHALL SUBMIT ITS REPORT BEFORE APRIL 1, 2007.

R. 456, H. 5217--GOVERNOR'S VETO OVERRIDDEN

The Veto on the following Act was taken up:

(R. 456) H.5217 (Word version)--Rep. Rutherford: AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT A GOLF CART MAY BE OPERATED ALONG CERTAIN PRIMARY HIGHWAYS IN RICHLAND COUNTY WITHIN A ONE-HALF-MILE RADIUS OF A SPORTING EVENT DURING CERTAIN HOURS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT DURING NIGHTTIME HOURS, THE GOLF CART MUST BE OPERATED WITH WORKING HEADLIGHTS AND TAIL LIGHTS.

The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 11; Nays 0

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Bales                  Ballentine             Brady
Cotty                  Harrison               Hart
Howard                 J. H. Neal             Rutherford
Scott                  J. E. Smith

Total--11

Those who voted in the negative are:

Total--0

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

RECURRENCE TO THE MORNING HOUR

Rep. LIMEHOUSE moved that the House recur to the Morning Hour, which was agreed to.

HOUSE RESOLUTION

The following was introduced:

H. 3237 (Word version) -- Rep. Clemmons: A HOUSE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND CONGRATULATING MEGAN RADVANSKY, OF MYRTLE BEACH, ON BEING CROWNED MISS SUN FUN 2007 AND WISHING HER MUCH SUCCESS IN HER REIGN AND IN ALL HER FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

The Resolution was adopted.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 3238 (Word version) -- Reps. Haskins, Bannister, Bedingfield and G. R. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 154 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO REQUIRE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNET USE POLICIES FOR SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works

H. 3239 (Word version) -- Reps. Funderburk and Cato: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION TO EXPEND UP TO FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE UNDER SECTION 903 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING LAND ON WHICH TO ERECT A BUILDING FOR USE BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means

H. 3240 (Word version) -- Reps. Scarborough and Crawford: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-63-95 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SCHOOL MAY NOT DENY A STUDENT ACCESS TO PROGRAMS BECAUSE THE STUDENT'S PARENT HAS REFUSED TO PLACE THE STUDENT ON A PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION, TO PROHIBIT A TEACHER OR SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL FROM REQUIRING A STUDENT TO TAKE MEDICATION, TO PROVIDE THAT A PARENT MAY REFUSE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREENING OF THE STUDENT, AND TO DEFINE "PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION".
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works

H. 3241 (Word version) -- Rep. Viers: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-3-102 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE MUST BE ELECTED TO OFFICE BY THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE STATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, AND PROVIDE FOR THE DIRECTOR'S TERM OF OFFICE, QUALIFICATIONS, VACANCIES, AND RELATED MATTERS; TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-10, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE GOVERNMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE ELECTED TO OFFICE UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 38-1-20, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE INSURANCE LAWS OF THIS STATE, SO AS TO MAKE CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION OF "DIRECTOR" OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; TO AMEND SECTION 38-3-10, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT'S DIRECTOR, PROVIDE THAT THE DIRECTOR IS ELECTED RATHER THAN APPOINTED, AND MAKE CHANGES IN THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REMOVAL OF THE DIRECTOR; TO AMEND SECTION 38-3-100, RELATING TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER CHANGES, DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT, IF THE DIRECTOR BECOMES A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE OR BECOMES A MEMBER OF A POLITICAL COMMITTEE DURING TENURE, HIS OFFICE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY VACATED; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE ELECTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE BEGINS WITH THE 2010 STATEWIDE ELECTION PROCESS AND THAT THE DIRECTOR SERVING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT SHALL CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL HIS SUCCESSOR IS ELECTED AND QUALIFIES FOR OFFICE.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

Rep. SELLERS moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.

RETURNED WITH CONCURRENCE

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 3205 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anderson, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Gambrell, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hinson, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING HIS EXCELLENCY, MARSHALL CLEMENT (MARK) SANFORD, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2007, IN THE CHAMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

H. 3208 (Word version) -- Reps. Miller and Anderson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND MR. JESSE TULLOS OF GEORGETOWN FOR NEARLY FOUR DECADES OF DEDICATED SERVICE IN THE FIELD OF JOURNALISM UPON HIS RETIREMENT AND WISH FOR HIM MANY YEARS OF HEALTH AND HAPPINESS IN HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

ADJOURNMENT

At 10:50 a.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. CEIPS, adjourned in memory of retired U.S. Army Major General William Cobb of Beaufort, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

***

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 1:38 P.M.