HOUSE JOURNAL - South Carolina Legislature Online

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

Thursday, January 10, 2008
(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 40:11: "Let your steadfast love and faithfulness keep me safe forever."
Let us pray. Help us to delight in Your will, O God. Take us out of our quagmire and place our feet on solid ground. Give each the integrity, wisdom, and courage to think through the agenda before this Body. May each take into consideration the people whom they serve. Bless our Nation, President, State, Governor, Speaker, and this Honorable Assembly as we carry out our duties. Protect our defenders of freedom at home and abroad as they protect us. In the name of our Lord. 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. ANTHONY moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Marisha Jeter of Union, which was agreed to.

REPORT RECEIVED

The following was received:

Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications

Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, January 10, 2008
Date and Time Final Report Issued: 12:00 noon on Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 12:00 noon.

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 15, 2008. 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 15, 2008. 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,
F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Vice-Chairman

Judicial Merit Selection Commission

January 10, 2008
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 2007 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 212-6629.

Sincerely,
F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
James H. Ritchie, 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 or her 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 Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court, and Administrative Law Court.

John C. Few
Supreme Court, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Few meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Few was born in 1963. He is 44 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Few 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 1988.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

One affidavit was filed in opposition to Judge Few's candidacy by Complainant Glen F. Laconey. The complaint arose out of an action in which Judge Few was assigned as a Special Referee by the Supreme Court, Roberts v. LaConey, ___ S.C. ___, 650 S.E.2d 474 (Sept. 4, 2007). The petitioner filed the case in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, alleging that Mr. LaConey was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Mr. LaConey was attempting to collect on a judgment awarded to another individual that Mr. LaConey asserts was assigned to him. Judge Few found that the judgment had not been assigned to Mr. LaConey, but that he was acting on behalf of the original judgment holder and attempting to collect a debt and concluded that Mr. LaConey had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The Supreme Court adopted Judge Few's report.

In his affidavit, Mr. LaConey states that the petition filed in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was a "fraudulent conveyance" by the petitoner and the amicus curiae intended to hinder, delay, and defraud Mr. LaConey. He believes that Judge Few has conspired with the petitioner and the amicus curiae because he knew of Mr. LaConey's allegations that the petitioner and the amicus curiae were hindering, delaying, and defrauding Mr. LaConey. Mr. LaConey next states that Judge Few "was one-sided" in his report and did not address any authority for Mr. LaConey's position. Mr. LaConey further states that the petitioner abandoned the case because he did not serve interrogatories on Mr. LaConey but relied upon an amicus curiae to serve interrogatories, and that Judge Few allowed the amicus curiae to take over the case. Next, Mr. LaConey states that Judge Few scheduled the hearing at a place where Mr. LaConey could not appear because he was indigent.

The Commission found Mr. LaConey's complaint without merit and did not give it consideration during its evaluation of Judge Few. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission noted that the Supreme Court adopted Judge Few's report and the Commission found that Judge Few handled the case appropriately and was acting within his discretion in scheduling the time and location of the hearing.

Judge Few 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 Few reported that he has made campaign expenditures for postage only.

Judge Few 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;

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

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

"(a) Annual Judicial Conference 08/22/02;

(b) 17th Annual Criminal Law Update 01/25/02;

(d) SC Circuit Judges' 05/07/03;

(e) The Civil Jury in America 08/07/03;

(f) Judicial Conference 08/07/03;

(g) Judicial Conference 08/19/04;

(h) 19th Annual Criminal Law Update 01/23/04;

(i) SC Circuit Judges' 05/05/04;

(j) Judicial Oath of Office 08/19/04;

(k) Annual SC Solicitors' 09/26/04;

(l) 20th Annual Criminal Law Update 01/21/05;

(m) Circuit Court Judges 05/11/05;

(n) Annual Judicial Conference 08/24/05;

(o) SCDTAA Annual Meeting 11/03/05;

(p) Advanced Evidence 09/25/05;

(q) Teaching Evidence 11/14/05;

(r) Fourth Annual Civil Law Update 01/27/06;

(s) 21st Annual Criminal Law Update 01/27/06;

(t) 20th Circuit Court Judges' 05/10/06;

(u) SCCA Judicial Conference 08/23/06;

(v) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update 01/26/07;

(w) 5th Annual Civil Law Update 01/26/07;

(x) Circuit Court Judges' 05/16/07;

(y) SCCA Judicial Conference 08/22/07."

Judge Few reported that he has taught the following continuing legal or judicial education programs:

"I have done a good bit of teaching and lecturing at continuing legal education classes since I began practicing law, and I continued doing that after I became a judge. I have spoken at the annual Greenville Bar Association December CLE program almost every year since I became a judge. I have spoken at numerous South Carolina Bar programs as well. An addition, I am a member of the faculty at the National Judicial College, where I taught a class on evidence to other judges in September 2005, and in August 2007. I have spoken on at least four occasions to the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association, twice at their summer meeting at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, and twice at their annual meeting, which is held in a different location each year."

Judge Few reported that he has not published any books and/or articles "since I became a judge in 2000."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Few 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 Few reported that prior to his election to the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Few was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.

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

"(a) 1989-1997 Private Practice, in partnership with my father, J. Kendall Few;

(b) 1997-2000 Private Practice."

Judge Few reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: At least once a month;

(b) State: At least once a month."

Judge Few reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 100%;

(b) Criminal: 0%;

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

"(a) Jury: 90%;

(b) Non-jury: 10%."

Judge Few provided that prior to election to the bench the types of cases he handled while practicing law usually called for more than one lawyer. He almost always served as either chief or associate counsel.

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

"(a) Bagwell v. Nissan, US District Court, District of South Carolina.

This case is significant because I was able to play a major role in enabling a severely disabled quadriplegic, who was otherwise unable to provide for himself financially, to have his basic needs met for the rest of his life;

(b) Shockley v. Hoechst Celanese, 793 F.Supp. 670 (D.S.C. 1992).

This case is significant because an Order I wrote at the request of the district judge was published in the Federal Supplement, and has played a significant role in the development of the law of environmental contamination;

(c) Roshto v. Spartanburg Petroleum, This Laurens County case was significant in that my co-counsel and I were able to get a settlement for a hotel (the old Holiday Inn at SC 56 and I-26) owner and operator that enabled the business to stay in operation despite the unwillingness of banks to finance the business because of groundwater contamination on the property caused by a gas station on adjoining property;

(d) Shook v. Golden Rule, 1993 WL 18754 (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 1993).

This case against a medical insurance provider is significant in that my co-counsel and I were able to get medical insurance payments immediately made for a severely disabled accident victim whose insurance had been denied in violation of the terms of the policy;

(e) Cameron v. General Motors Corp., 158 F.R.D. 581 (1994).

This case is significant because of the fact that the U.S. District Judge who presided over it was essentially disqualified by the Fourth Circuit, and the case was transferred to a District Judge from West Virginia. The legal issues were substantial, and eventually involved litigation in West Virginia and Detroit Michigan, in addition to South Carolina."

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

"(a) Shockley v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 996 F.2d 1212 (4th Cir. 1993). I wrote the brief in this case, but did not personally argue the appeal;

(b) Ehlies v. Shirley, 2000-UP-250;

(c) Phillips v. Southland Life Insurance Co., This was the first case I ever tried, and the first appeal I ever argued. I don't have the case number of the unpublished opinion. I lost both the trial and the appeal;

(d) Clark v. Greenville County, 313 S.C. 205, 437 S.E.2d 117 (1993). I don't think I actually argued this appeal, but I wrote or substantially wrote the briefs;

(e) Kelly v. Para-Chem Southern, Inc., 311 S.C. 223, 428 S.E.2d 703 (1993)."

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

Judge Few reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"I have served as a Circuit Judge since July 1, 2000"

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

"(a) Dissenting opinion in South Carolina State Ports Authority v. Jasper County, 368 S.C. 388, 629 S.E.2d 624 (2006). I was sitting as an Acting Justice by designation;

(b) Foothills Brewing Concern, Inc., et. al. v. City of Greenville, 06-CP-23-7803 (Order dated March 8, 2007);

(d) Sloan v. Greenville County, 99-CP-23-3022 (Order dated May 7, 2001), 99-CP-23-5004 (Order dated May 7, 2001), 00-CP-23-5354 (Order dated September 14, 2001), aff'd 356 S.C. 531, 590 S.E.2d 338 (Ct. App. 2003);

(e) Pitts v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., 352 S.C. 319, 574 S.E.2d 502 (Ct. App. 2002)."

Judge Few reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge:

"I have reached a tentative agreement to teach a class at the Charleston School of Law for per diem and a salary."

Judge Few further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy: "I was an unsuccessful candidate for the Supreme Court, Seat 5 in 2007."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Few "to be a most competent and excellent jurist." They further found that "his qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."

Judge Few is not married. He has three children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar;

(b) Greenville County Bar."

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

"I serve on the Duke University Alumni Advisory Committee for the upstate. All I do in that capacity is to interview high school seniors who have applied to Duke. I also serve in the unofficial role of President of the Duke Club of the Upstate, which specifically does not involve any fundraising whatsoever. I am simply a contact person for Duke alumni who live in this area."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Few is a very fair and studious judge with strong intellect which would serve him well on the Supreme Court. They noted he has ably served as a Circuit Court judge for the past seven years. They further noted that Judge Few is known for his thorough preparation in advance of hearings.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Few qualified and nominated him for election to the Supreme Court.

Diane S. Goodstein
Supreme Court, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Goodstein meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Goodstein was born in 1955. She is 52 years old and a resident of Summerville, South Carolina. Judge Goodstein 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 Judge Goodstein.

Judge Goodstein 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 Goodstein reported that she has made a campaign expenditure for gas which is not required to be reported.

Judge Goodstein 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;

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

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

"Conference/CLE Name Date(s)

(a) 2002 SC Bar 17th Annual Criminal Law Update 2002;

(b) Scientific Evidence and Experts 2002;

(d) 2003 18th Annual Criminal Law Update 1/24/03;

(e) Civil Law Update 1/24/03;

(f) Circuit Judges Conference 5/05/03;

(g) Annual Judicial Conference 8/03;

(h) 2004 Conference SC Women Lawyers 4/30/04;

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

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

(k) SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/05/04;

(l) Annual Judicial Conference 8/19/04;

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

(n) Advanced Evidence 11/15- 18/04;

(o) 2005 Circuit Judges Conference 5/11- 13/05;

(p) Annual Judicial Conference 8/05;

(q) 2006 Fourth Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/06;

(r) 21st Annual Criminal Law Update 1/27/06;

(s) Circuit Court Judicial Conference 5/06;

(t) Handling Capital Cases 6/10/06;

(u) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/06;

(v) SC Judges and Journalist 9/28/06;

(w) 2007 Fifth Annual Civil Law Update 1/26/06;

(x) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update 1/26/07;

(y) Circuit Judges Conference 5/07;

(z) Annual Judicial Conference 8/07."

Judge Goodstein reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"Conference/CLE Name Date(s)

(a) SCCA Orientation School for New Judges

Presentation entitled Running of a Court 2002;

(b) SCCA Orientation School for New Judges

Presentation entitled Running of a Court 2003;

Presentation entitled General Courtroom Protocol,

Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Charging the jury 2003;

(d) Group Leader National Judicial College

Course Advanced Evidence 2004;

(e) Panel Participation Women Lawyers Conference 4/30/04;

(f) SCCA Orientation School for New Judges

Presentation entitled Running of a Court 2004;

(g) SCCA Orientation School for New Judges

Presentation Running of a Court 7/11/05;

(h) Part of a panel discussion for Young Lawyers Division

Of the SC Bar Association 1/28/06;

(i) Speaker SC Women Lawyers topic Ladder to Success

10/13/06;

(j) Speaker at Worker's Compensation Convention

Topic Ethical Considerations in Worker's Compensation

Appeals 2006;

(k) Instruction Magistrates' School Presentation Running

Of the Court 3/28/07;

(l) Part of a panel discussion Jewish Historical Society 4/28/07;

(m) Supreme Court Institute 6/19/07;

(n) New Judges School 7/07;

(o) New Magistrates School 8/3/07;

(p) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association

I lectured on Collateral Source Rule;

(q) SC Defense Lawyers Association

On a Panel;

(r) Women in Law Conference

Member of a Panel;

(s) SC Bar Association Young Lawyers Division

Member of a Panel 2005;

(t) Converse College

I am speaking at their "Honor Day" Ceremonies 10/9/07;

(u) South Carolina - North Carolina Bar Associations

Conference on Women in the Profession

Member of a Panel 10/18/07."

Judge Goodstein reported that she has published the following:

"(a) I have written materials for the Orientation School for New Circuit Court Judges on the subject of 'Running for a Court'. However, they have not been published other than for use at the seminars;

(b) Credibility and Character Evidence History Policy and Procedure

Editorial Board Member 2003."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Goodstein 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 Goodstein reported that prior to her election to the bench her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Goodstein reported that she has held the following public office:

"Other than judicial office I have not held public office. I was County attorney for Dorchester County but I do not now think that was a public office."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Goodstein was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1981.

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

"I began practice as an Associate with the firm of Goodstein, Bowling, Douglas & Phillips from 1981 through 1983. I became a partner in Goodstein & Goodstein, PA, from 1983 through 1998. After my election to the bench in 1998, and days before I concluded my practice, my law firm merged with the firm of Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, creating Rosen, Goodstein & Hagood. My husband continued to practice with that firm until the end of 2000.

My private practice was always a general one. However, it progressed from one which primarily was associated with the representation of Plaintiffs to one which represented both Plaintiffs and Defendants. In the later years, I practiced more often in the public sector, serving as Dorchester County Attorney, as General Counsel for the Charleston County Aviation Authority and as counsel for Dorchester County School District Number Two. I prosecuted cases for the Charleston County Aviation Authority Police Department. In 1997, Goodstein & Goodstein began to represent the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund in cases arising in Charleston and Dorchester Counties. After sixteen years, my law practice had expanded into numerous areas of the private and public sector representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants."

Judge Goodstein reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: An average of every six months;

(b) State: An average of every two months;

Judge Goodstein reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 50%;

(b) Criminal: 10%;

Judge Goodstein reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 30%;

(b) Non-jury: 70 %."

Judge Goodstein provided that prior to her election to the bench she most often served as chief counsel.

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

"(a) State of South Carolina v. Sammy Lee Amaker, Case Number 85-GS-18-167. This was a high profile death penalty case in which I was associate counsel. My law partner was appointed to represent the Defendant. This matter was significant because of the requisite effort required to defend an individual under the pressures of a potential penalty of death;

(b) Kelly Snowden v. William Fend, Case Number 88-CP-18-53. Our clients' young child had been molested by a neighbor and this civil action in Common Pleas Court was brought to recover damages from the perpetrator. The case was a means for the child's parents to express their outrage. It was significant for two reasons. The victimized child was needed to testify which required great care to procure her testimony without doing her harm. It is also significant because of the amount of the verdict which was $1,350,000.00;

(c) Julian W. Rawl, as Administrator of the Estate of Edwin E. Rawl, Jr. v. United States of America, C.A. No. 2:80-2525-2. This matter was litigated non-jury in Federal Court and was a case brought by Julian Rawl whose parents were killed when his father's aircraft crashed. The case is significant because of the complexity of the issues involved. The Plainfiff alleged negligence on the part of the air traffic controller. This matter was defended by U.S. Justice Department, Civil Division, with lead counsel from Washington;

(d) Tideland Utilities, Inc. and Earl J. DuPriest v. Sunnox, Inc and Prillaman Chemical Co., Case Number 90-CP-18-846. This case involved a suit for damages resulting from the explosion of a chlorine canister in the Plaintiff's warehouse. A related case was filed (Tideland Utilities, Inc. and Earl J. DuPriest v. Bitimious Corporation) against the Plaintiff's liability carrier for wrongful failure to pay an insurance claim and breach of the insurance contract. The case was significant because this single event generated both a products liability action which was fairly complicated and the additional suit highlighting contractual issues with the Plaintiff's insurance carrier;

(e) State of South Carolina v. Pearless Owens. In this criminal matter, I was co-counsel in a murder trial which tried to conclusion once resulting in a mistrial because of the jury's inability to reach a verdict; mistried a second time due to prosecutorial error; mistried due to a critical witness's emotional breakdown during the third trial and ended in a workable plea just prior to the fourth trial. The case was significant because it was extremely challenging to continue to work with the case so that the defense remained proficient and vibrant and did not become stale. It was also significant because the decedent was a family member which complicated the normally difficult issues in such a case."

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

"(a) Gamble, Givens and Moody v. Moise, 288 S.C. 210, 341 S.E.2d 147, 1986;

(b) Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121, (4th Cir.) 1986;

(d) Turner v. City of North Charleston, 675 F.Supp. 314 (DCSC 1987);

(e) Turner v. City of North Charleston, 675 F.Supp. 314 (DCSC 1987)."

The following is Judge Goodstein's account of a criminal appeal she has personally handled:

"While I was involved in numerous criminal matters; in the role of prosecutor for the Charleston County Aviation Authority police department and privately as defense counsel there failed to be negative results which would necessitate an appeal. The exception to this was the matter of State v. Amaker which was a Capital Case in which I was involved as associate counsel and the jury mistried on the sentence to be imposed; therefore the Court imposed a sentence of life. The appeal for this case was handled by Indigent defense and the conviction and sentence were affirmed."

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

"I was elected as a Resident Judge, First Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, on May 6, 1998 for the term July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2004. I was re-elected Feb 2004 and am currently serving my second term. Limitations on jurisdiction include only those matters for which exclusive jurisdiction lies in the family court and of course those matters in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Circuit Court is best described as a court of general jurisdiction."

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

"(a) State v. Marion Bowman, 366 S.C. 485, 623 SE2d 378: This was a death penalty case for which many pre-trial orders were issued, the most significant being the order to suppress defendants confession. This matter was affirmed;

(b) Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 355 SC 437, 586 SE2d 124;

(d) Simmons v. City of Charleston, 562 SE2d 476;

(e) Margaret Sherkh as personal representative of the estate of Asif Sherkh, deceased v. Lexington Medical Center, Case No: 2003-CP-32-0675."

Judge Goodstein reported the following regarding her employment while serving as a judge:

"I have not been employed other than my judicial office since my election in 1998 except I consult often with my husband regarding our family business and I am on the board of directors of our family business."

Judge Goodstein further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I have been an unsuccessful candidate for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat 5 which was elected in the Spring of 2007."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Goodstein to be a "very eminently qualified and a most highly regarded candidate, who would honorably serve on the Supreme Court bench."

Judge Goodstein is married to Arnold Samuel Goldstein. She has two children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) American Bar Association;

(d) Circuit Judges Association;

(e) Women in Law Association."

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

"(a) Judicial Standards Committee Member;

(b) Summerville Debutante Club;

The Commission commented on Judge Goodstein's compassion as she is truly concerned for the litigants and lawyers who come before her in the courtroom. They noted her love for the law and her willingness to study and continue learning the law. They further noted she routinely handles complex cases that are brought before the Circuit Court Bench.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Goodstein qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Supreme Court.

Kaye G. Hearn
Supreme Court, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hearn meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Hearn was born in 1950. She is 57 years old and a resident of Conway, South Carolina. Judge Hearn 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 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Two affidavits were filed in opposition to Judge Hearn's candidacy. One of the filed affidavits was by Mr. Marion Driggers. This was substantially the same complaint that was filed by Mr. Driggers in the Spring 2007 screening. The Commission did not receive additional testimony from Mr. Driggers on this issue after having previously found that Mr. Driggers' complaint had no merit and that he was attempting to re-litigate a matter in which he was dissatisfied with the result.

The second affidavit was filed by Ms. Jara Gobbi. The affidavit related to Judge Hearn's testimony in response to an affidavit filed by Ms. Gobbi against Judge Hearn during the Spring 2007 screening. Ms. Gobbi's initial complaint alleged that Judge Hearn had shown the appearance of impropriety by her social relationship with a member of the bar, Richard Lovelace. Ms. Gobbi's current affidavit alleges that Judge Hearn gave false testimony before the Commission during the April 2007 screening. Ms. Gobbi's affidavit quotes Judge Hearn's testimony from the transcript where Judge Hearn testified "I haven't even sat on a panel involving her case. In fact, because she has so many cases at the Court of Appeals, we impaneled her own special panel to deal with all of her litigation, and I'm not - I have never been on that panel." Ms. Gobbi alleged that Judge Hearn's testimony is false and as evidence provides a copy of a January 12, 2007 Order from the Court of Appeals signed by Judge Hearn where Ms. Gobbi is listed as the Appellant. The Order from the Court of Appeals denied Ms. Gobbi's request for a rehearing on an issue from which she had previously been denied relief. Judge Hearn was one of three justices to execute the Order.

Judge Hearn thoroughly responded to the allegations of Ms. Gobbi's complaint. Judge Hearn noted that her testimony before the Commission in April 2007 primarily related to her disqualification in cases involving Richard Lovelace and that Richard Lovelace was not involved in the case involving the Order which Ms. Gobbi includes with her affidavit. Judge Hearn also noted that the Order in question related to an intermediate, routine order in an ongoing appeal that has not yet reached the merits of the case. Additionally, Judge Hearn noted the volume of such orders that come before the Court of Appeals. She also explained her primary responsibility, as Chief Judge, for handling such orders as well as the large volume of cases that Ms. Gobbi has before the Court of Appeals. According to information provided by Ken Richstad, the clerk of court, Ms. Gobbi has been the appellant in approximately 39 appeals since the year 2000.

Judge Hearn 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 Hearn reported she has made the following campaign expenditures: "None, other than money spent on postage for letters to the General Assembly concerning my candidacy, which was no more than one hundred dollars."

Judge Hearn 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;

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

Judge Hearn described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2003

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap) - 3-10-03;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-03;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-03;

Family Court Bench Bar - 12-5-03.
2004

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap) - 3-8-04;

Using Electronic Evidence in Civil Litigation - 7-15-04;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-04;

Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners - 9-24-04;

Wofford and the Law - 9-25-04;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-04;

South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar - 12-3-04.
2005

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap) - 3-7-05;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-06;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-05;

South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar - 12-12-05.
2006

Trial and Appellate Advocacy - 1-28-06;

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap) - 3-6-06;

S.C. Family Court Summit - 7-06;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-06;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-06;

AutoTorts - 12-2-06.
2007

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-07."

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

"(a) Hearsay Rule in the Family Court, Columbia, S.C., July 21, 1979;

(b) Order Writing for Circuit Judges, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 1979;

(d) Moderator, Organizer, and Presenter at People's Law School, Horry Georgetown Tech, 1980-1984;

(e) Appellate Court Writs, Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1980;

(f) Order Writing for Law Clerks, Columbia, S.C. Aug. 1980;

(g) Order Writing for Law Clerks and Staff Attorneys, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 1981;

(h) Rules and Procedures of the Family Court, S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention, Hilton Head, S.C., Aug. 20, 1981;

(i) Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Greenville, S.C., Apr. 2, 1982;

(j) Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Charleston, S.C., May 1982;

(k) Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Florence, S.C., June 25, 1982;

(l) Appellate Advocacy Preservation of the Record, Columbia, S.C., July 15, 1983;

(m) Opinion Writing for Appellate Judges, Columbia, S.C., Oct. 1983;

(n) Separation and Antenuptial Agreements, Columbia, S.C., Oct. 12, 1984;

(o) Effective Order Writing, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 6-7, 1984;

(p) Order Writing, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., Feb. 28, 1985;

(q) Order Writing, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., Mar. 1985;

(r) Order Writing, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., August 1985;

(s) Complex Issues in Family Court, Statutory Update, and Alimony Perspective - Co-Moderator, Columbia, S.C., Nov. 19-20, 1987;

(t) Practical Problems in Legal Ethics, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 1987;

(u) Order Writing, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., July 21-22, 1988;

(v) Children's Rights, SCDSS Family Violence Conference, Columbia, S.C., Mar. 19-20, 1990;

(w) Judge's Perspective on Adoption, Columbia, S.C., April 6, 1990;

(x) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 1990;

(y) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 1991;
(z) The Future of Families in the Courts, Greenville, S.C., Apr. 4, 1991;

(aa) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 1991;

(bb) Order Writing, New Alimony Statute, Abuse and Neglect, and Contempt - Moderator, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 27- 28, 1991;

(cc) Domestic Violence, Magistrate's JCLE, Columbia, S.C., November 8, 1991;

(dd) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC, March 1992;

(ee) Adoption, Abuse and Neglect - Moderator, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., July 28, 1992;

(ff) Separation Agreements, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 1992;

(gg) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., May 17, 1993;

(hh) The Future of Family Court, S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention, Hilton Head, S.C., Aug. 18, 1993;

(ii) Suppression Hearings in Family Court, Solicitors' Conference, Myrtle Beach, S.C., Oct. 4, 1993;

(jj) How the Family Court is Using ADR and Mediation in the Courtroom, S.C. Bar Mid-Winter Meeting, Charleston, S.C., Jan. 21, 1994;

(kk) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., February 28, 1994;

(ll) Juvenile Delinquency, Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., June 24, 1994;

(mm) Family Court Rules, Columbia, S.C., July 29, 1994;

(nn) Waiver Hearings, Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 19, 1994;

(oo) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 6, 1995;

(pp) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., May 16, 1995;

(qq) The Hot Evidentiary Issues Under the New Rules, The Judicial Conference, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 24, 1995;

(rr) Judicial Perspective on Briefs and Oral Arguments, Ethical Issues Facing Family Law Practitioners, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 19, 1995;

(ss) Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 5, 1996;

(tt) The Future of Appellate Courts, Seminar for New Appellate Court Judges, Columbia, S.C., May 1, 1996;

(uu) Preserving the Trial Record, Circuit Court Judges Seminar, Fripp Island, S.C., May 1996;

(vv) Preserving the Trial Record, The Judicial Conference, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 22, 1996;

(ww) Ethics: A View from the Bench, S.C. Public Defenders' Conference, North Myrtle Beach, S.C., Sept. 30, 1996;

(xx) A View from the Bench, Ethics for Family Law Practitioners, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 10, 1996;

(yy) Appellate Writs and Motions Practice, S.C. Bar Mid-Winter Meeting, Charleston, S.C., Jan. 25, 1997;

(zz) Family Law Update, The Judicial Conference, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 22, 1997;

(aaa) Perspectives on Judging, S.C. Student Trial Lawyers Association, Columbia, S.C., Oct. 1, 1997;

(bbb) The Rules of Evidence and The Dead Man's Statute, S.C. Probate Judges Conference, Myrtle Beach, S.C., Oct. 13, 1997;

(ccc) Automatic Stay and Petitions for Supersedeas, Family Court Seminar, Conway, S.C., Oct. 21, 1997;

(ddd) Appellate Ethics Update, Ethics Seminar, Columbia, S.C., Nov. 14, 1997;

(eee) Order Writing, Probate Judges Conference, Columbia, S.C., Feb. 26, 1998;

(fff) Important Rules of Appellate Practice, S.C. Practice and Procedure Update, Columbia, S.C., March 20, 1998;

(ggg) Comparative Negligence Developments, S.C. Tort Law Update, Columbia, S.C., Sept. 25, 1998;

(hhh) Preserving Evidentiary Matters on Appeal, Winning Evidence, Columbia, S.C. Feb. 19, 1999;

(iii) Appellate Issues, Court of Appeals Bench/Bar seminar, Columbia, S.C., October 22, 1999;

(jjj) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., May 2000;

(kkk) Appellate Issues, Family Court Bench/Bar seminar, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 1, 2000;

(lll) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 2001;

(mmm)Issues in Comparative Negligence, 2001 South Carolina Tort Law Update, Columbia, S.C., September 28, 2001;

(nnn) Appellate Issues, Ring Out the Old, Ring In the New, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 21, 2001;

(ooo) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., May 15, 2002;

(ppp) Appellate Issues, Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 6, 2002;

(qqq) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 10, 2003;

(rrr) Oral Argument, South Carolina Trial Lawyers' Association Convention, 2003;

(sss) Now we have Campbell, what do we do with it?, South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association, Sea Island, GA, Nov. 7, 2003;

(ttt) Appellate Issues, Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 5, 2003;

(uuu) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 8, 2004;

(vvv) Using Electronic Evidence in Civil Litigation, July 15, 2004;

(www)Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners, Columbia, S.C., Sept. 24, 2004;

(xxx) Wofford and the Law, Panel Leader for Legal Symposium Spartanburg, S.C., Sept. 25, 2004;

(yyy) Appellate Issues, South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 3, 2004;

(zzz) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 7, 2005;

(aaaa) Professionalism, Forum on Professionalism at the Charleston School of Law, Charleston, S.C., Oct. 2005;

(bbbb) Appellate Issues, S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 12, 2005;

(cccc) Oral Arguments, S.C. Bar Convention, Jan. 28, 2006;

(dddd) Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 6, 2006;

(eeee) Expediting Appeals in Dependency Cases, S.C. Family Court Summit, Columbia, S.C., July 2006;

(ffff) Appellate Advocacy, Charleston School of Law, Visiting Adjunct Professor, Fall 2006 semester;

(gggg) Order Writing, 14th Annual Probate Bench/Bar, Columbia, S.C., Sept. 15, 2006;

(hhhh) Keeping Your Verdicts Without Compromising Your Ethics, SCTLA AutoTorts, Atlanta, G.A., Dec. 2, 2006;

(iiii) Oral Argument, Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 7, 2006;

(jjjj) Appellate Advocacy, Charleston School of Law, Visiting Adjunct Professor, Fall 2007 semester;

(kkkk) Ethics, Summary Court Judges' Conference, Myrtle Beach, S.C., September 7, 2007;

(llll) Panel on the Constitution, Wofford College, Spartanburg, S.C., September 26, 2007."

Judge Hearn reported that she has published the following:

"(a) S.C. Appellate Practice Handbook (S.C. Bar CLE 1985), Contributing Author;

(b) Marital Litigation in S.C., Roy T. Stuckey and F. Glenn Smith (S.C. Bar CLE 1997), Editorial Board;

(c) South Carolina Damages, Terry E. Richardson, Jr., and Daniel S. Haltiwanger (S.C. Bar CLE 2004), authored chapter titled, 'S.C. Modified Comparative Negligence;'

(d) The Appellate Prosecutor: A Practical and Inspirational Guide to Appellate Advocacy, Ronald H. Clark (S.C. Bar CLE 2005), authored chapter on oral argument."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Hearn 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 Hearn reported that prior to her election to the bench her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

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

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

"(a) 1977-1979: Law clerk to the Honorable Julius B. Ness, Associate Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court;

(b) 1979-1985: Associate and partner in firm which eventually became Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn & Hearn; located in Loris and Myrtle Beach, S.C.;

(d) 1995-1999: Judge, S.C. Court of Appeals;

(e) 1999-present: Chief Judge, S.C. Court of Appeals."

Judge Hearn reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: 4-5 times per year;

(b) State: weekly."

Judge Hearn reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 45%;

(b) Criminal: 10%;

Judge Hearn reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 40%;

(b) Non-jury: 60%."

Judge Hearn provided that prior to her election to the bench she most often served as lead counsel.

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

"(a) Hellum v. Todd, (1980) (I was trial counsel in this Horry County personal injury for the plaintiff who was rendered quadriparesic as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The case is significant because a 'day-in-the-life' video was introduced for one of the first times and admitted into evidence. The jury returned a verdict of $1.75 million, and it was settled with the insurance carrier while on appeal based on the Tyger River doctrine.);

(b) King v. Williams, 276 S.C. 478, 279 S.E.2d 618 (1981) (I was appellate counsel in this medical malpractice case wherein the Supreme Court abolished the locality rule.). This case has been cited seventy-three times in reported decisions and secondary sources;

(c) Sweatt v. Norman, 283 S.C. 443, 322 S.E.2d 478 (Ct. App. 1984) (I was trial and appellate counsel in this case where the jury
returned a verdict of $1.5 million based upon the family purpose doctrine.);

(d) Gasque v. Heublein, Inc., 281 S.C. 278, 315 S.E.2d 556 (1984) (I was trial and appellate counsel in this case; the Supreme Court found the two-issue rule required affirmance of jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff whose vision was impaired when a champagne cork prematurely ejected.). This case has been cited over fifty times in other reported decisions and secondary sources;

(e) Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984) (I was trial and appellate counsel; the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's grant of plaintiff's motion for new trial nisi additur.). This case has been cited in seventy-five reported decisions and secondary sources."

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

"(a) King v. Williams, 276 S.C. 478, 279 S.E.2d 618 (1981);

(b) Gasque v. Heublein, Inc., 281 S.C. 278, 315 S.E.2d 556 (1984);

(d) Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984);

(e) Todd v. S.C. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 287 S.C. 190, 336 S.E.2d 472 (1985)."

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

"(a) State v. Drew, 281 S.C. 440, 316 S.E.2d 367 (1984) (reversing appellants' convictions because the trial court improperly admitted evidence of other crimes);

(b) State v. Miller, 287 S.C. 280, 337 S.E.2d 83 (1985) (affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court's grant of jnov in favor of defendant);

(d) State v. David Cook, S.C. S.Ct. (unpublished);

(e) Greene v. State, S.C. S.Ct. (unpublished)."

Judge Hearn reported that she has held the following judicial office(s):

"I was elected Family Court Judge in 1986 and served until 1995. The family court has jurisdiction over matters involving domestic relationships, such as divorce, division of marital property, custody, visitation rights, adoptions, and termination of parental rights. The family court also has jurisdiction over minors under the age of seventeen who have committed crimes, unless those crimes are serious enough for the child to be 'waived up' to General Sessions court. In 1995, I was elected to serve as a judge on the S.C. Court of Appeals, and in 1999, I was elected Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. I continue to serve in that position. The court of appeals has jurisdiction over all appeals, with the following seven exceptions (see Section 14-8-200 of the South Carolina Code):

(1) death penalty cases;

(2) final decisions of the Public Service Commission setting public utility rates;

(3) challenges to the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance (unless the Supreme Court deems the constitutional question raised insignificant);

(4) final judgments from the circuit court involving the authorization, issuance, or proposed issuance of general obligation debt, revenue, institutional, industrial, or hospital bonds of the State, its agencies, political subdivisions, public service districts, counties, and municipalities, or any other indebtedness authorized by Article X of the Constitution of this State;

(5) judgments dealing with elections or election procedures;

(6) orders limiting the investigation of the state grand jury; and

(7) orders dealing with an abortion by a minor."

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

"(a) Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Life Ins. Co., 322 S.C. 139, 470 S.E.2d 382 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1167 (1987) (holding that an employee seeking to recover benefits under ERISA was entitled to a jury trial);

(b) Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime, 325 S.C. 507, 482 S.E.2d 569 (Ct. App. 1997) (en banc), aff'd as modified, 333 S.C. 71, 508 S.E.2d 565 (1998) (holding that assumption of risk has been subsumed by South Carolina's adoption of comparative fault);

(c) State v. Hamilton, 327 S.C. 440, 486 S.E.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 904 (1998) (finding no error in trial judge's decision to allow the State to prove defendant had two prior burglary convictions despite defendant's willingness to stipulate to his prior convictions);

(d) Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 344 S.C. 266, 543 S.E.2d 264 (Ct. App. 2001) (Hearn, C.J., dissenting), rev'd, 355 S.C. 316, 585 S.E.2d 272 (2003) (adopting dissent);

(e) In re Expediting Appeals from Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings, 366 S.C. 670, 623 S.E.2d 661 (Ct. App. 2005) (recognizing the need for stability in children's lives and implementing an expedited procedure for handling appeals from termination of parental rights proceedings, adoption proceedings, and/or DSS actions involving the custody of a minor child)."

Judge Hearn reported the following regarding her employment while serving as a judge:

"Adjunct Professor of Appellate Advocacy for the Charleston School of Law. Employed for the Fall Semester of 2006, from August through November."

Judge Hearn further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In May of 2007, I unsuccessfully ran for Seat 5 on the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Judicial Merit Selection Committee nominated Donald Beatty, H. Bruce Williams, and me for the seat. The Honorable Donald W. Beatty won the election."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Hearn to be qualified based upon their interview with her in the Spring of 2007.

Judge Hearn is married to George M. Hearn. She has one child.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) National Council of Chief Judges;

President, 2005-2006;

Chair, Education Committee, 2003;

Member, Executive Board, 2001-Present;

Member, Education Committee, 2000-2002;

Treasurer, 1990;

Secretary, 1991;

President, 1992."

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

"In 2004, I was the portrait honoree of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers' Association."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Hearn's exemplary service as the former President of the National Conference of Chief Judges brings credit to our State. They noted that she has been a successful leader and administrator as the Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals for the past eight years. They further noted her outstanding demeanor on the bench, as well as her keen intellectual ability, and further commented on the LLM she earned to strengthen her legal ability.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Hearn to be qualified and nominated her for election to the Supreme Court.

Deadra L. Jefferson
Supreme Court, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jefferson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Jefferson was born in 1963. She is 44 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.

Six affidavits were filed in opposition to Judge Jefferson's candidacy. The complainants were: Kristi Harleston, Ernest McCrae, Claudia McCrae, Cheri L. McCrae Taylor, Douglas Taylor, and Pamela Marie Lopez. These six complaints all arose out of the case of State v. John McCrae, which Judge Jefferson heard in May of 2007. The complainants asserted that Judge Jefferson improperly conducted the trial and leniently sentenced the defendant. In the case, Mr. McCrae faced charges of lewd acts upon a minor. These acts were alleged to have taken place between 1975 and 1979. The complainants were to be called as witnesses at the trial; however, their testimony was about separate incidences that were alleged to have happened to other victims and not to the victim in the case. Before the witnesses were allowed to testify before the jury, Judge Jefferson had them testify in-camera to determine the relevancy of their testimony. At the conclusion of the in-camera testimony, the defendant decided to plead guilty to the charges, and the witnesses, who were some of the complainants, were not allowed to testify before the jury. They were upset with this procedure, and, this was one of the reasons the complainants filed statements with the Commission.

Furthermore, the complainants were upset with the sentence Judge Jefferson gave to the defendant. The law in effect in 1975 carried a maximum sentence of ten years for this crime. After the defendant pled guilty, Judge Jefferson sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, suspended to five years probation. The complainants were concerned that the defendant has not served any time in jail for this offense and that he is not being electronically monitored, which they believed was mandatory. Unfortunately, though, the complainants are mistaken about the punishment they believe the defendant should have been given. Apparently, they researched Jessica's Law as it was passed in 2005 and they think this law applies to the situation involving Mr. McCrae. However, Mr. McCrae pled guilty to actions that took place between 1975 and 1979, which is long before Jessica's Law went into effect and before electronic monitoring existed. At the hearing, Cheri McCrae-Taylor and Douglas Taylor testified on behalf of all of the complainants. They reiterated the complaints that were written in their affidavits, and they complained that based on their judgment of Judge Jefferson, they believed she was not experienced enough to serve on the Supreme Court.

Judge Jefferson thoroughly responded to the complaints, and she apologized for anything that she said during the trial that may have upset the complainants. She explained the procedure for criminal trials and in that explanation pointed out that the in-camera testimony was proper. Additionally, she noted that the law in effect at the time the crimes occurred only allowed her to sentence the defendant to ten years imprisonment, and that due to all of the circumstances, she chose to sentence the defendant as she did. Finally, Judge Jefferson noted that she is compassionate to all victims and found it unfortunate that the McCrae family did not feel that she was in this case.

At the Public Hearing, the Commission commented that they were impressed with Judge Jefferson's professionalism and poise in responding to her complainants. The Commission found the complaints had no merit.

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.

Judge Jefferson 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;

Judge Jefferson 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 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) Annual Criminal Law Update 1/25/2001;

(b) Family Law Section Seminar 1/26/2001;

(d) 2001 Orientation School for New Circuit Judges 7/2/2001;

(e) Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/2001;

(f) SCBLA Conference 9/14/2001;

(g) Annual Criminal Law Update, Annual

Civil Law Update 1/25/2002;

(h) Circuit Judges' Annual Conference 5/8/2002;

(i) SCTLA Annual Convention 8/1/2002;

(j) Annual Judicial Conference 8/22/2002;

(k) Annual Criminal Law Update 1/23/2003;

(l) Annual Civil Law Update 1/23/2003;

(m) Annual Criminal Law Update 1/24/2003;

(n) Women Lawyers in the New Millennium 4/11/2003;

(o) SC Circuit Judges' Conference 5/7/2003;

(p) National Judicial College General

Jurisdiction Course 7/14/2003;

(q) SCTLA Annual Convention 8/7/2003;

(r) Annual Judicial Conference 8/21/2003;

(s) SCDTAA Annual Conference 11/6/2003;

(t) Annual Criminal Law Update 1/23/2004;

(u) Annual Civil Law Update 1/23/2004;

(v) National Conference on Racial and Ethnic Fairness

the Courts 4/14/2004;

(w) SC Circuit Judges' Annual Conference 5/5/2004;

(x) SCTLA Annual Conference 8/6/2004;

(y) Annual Judicial Conference 8/19/2004;

(z) Supreme Court Judicial Oath of Office 8/19/2004;

(aa) National Judicial College Advanced Evidence 11/15-19/2004;

(bb) Annual Civil Law Update 1/21/2005;

(cc) Annual Criminal Law Update 1/21/2005;

(dd) National Conference on Racial and Ethnic

Fairness in the Courts 4/13/2005;

(ee) Annual Circuit Judges Conference 5/11-13/2005;

(ff) Annual Judicial Conference 8/24/2005;

(gg) Annual SC Solicitors Conference 9/25/2005;

(hh) Annual Criminal Law Update 1/27/2006;

(ii) Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/2006;

(jj) National Conference on Racial and Ethnic

Fairness in the Courts 4/26/2006;

(kk) National Judicial College Handling

Capital Cases 6/10-15/2006;

(ll) Annual Circuit Judges Conference 5/10/2006;

(mm) Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/2006;

(nn) SCDTAA Annual Conference 11/9/2006;

(oo) Annual Criminal Law Update 1/26/2007;

(pp) Annual Civil Law Update 1/26/2007;

(qq) National Conference on Racial and

Ethnic Fairness in the Courts 5/2-5/5/2007;

(rr) Annual Circuit Court Judges Conference 5/16/2007;

(ss) SCTLA Annual Conference 8/2-3/2007;

(tt) Annual Judicial Conference 8/22/07."

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;

(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';

(aa) November 16, 2006, Young Lawyers Division, New Admitees Reception, Presentation;

(bb) May 24, 2007, Young Lawyers Division, 'Tips for Young Lawyers in Circuit Court'."

Judge Jefferson reported that she has published the following: "I have provided written seminar materials for the courses listed above and these materials have been published by the S.C. bar as a part of their published seminar materials. I have not published any books 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 prior to her election to the bench she was 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;

(d) Resident Circuit Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, elected to serve May 31, 2001 to the present."

Judge Jefferson reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a) Federal: approximately 15 times;

(b) State: approximately 50-60 times."

Judge Jefferson reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a) Civil: 47%;

(b) Criminal: 6%;

Judge Jefferson reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a) Jury: 5%;

(b) Non-jury: 95%."

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

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

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a) Blake v. County of Charleston, This case involved complex (federal) civil rights litigation. It was tried for two (2) weeks and involved many motions and other complex legal issues relating to evidence and the new federal rules. The case also resulted in a mistrial and was later tried a second time for one (1) week. I tried this case with two (2) other lawyers, both of whom had been practicing more than eighteen (18) years. During this process I was treated as an equal and an integral part of the litigation team. I was entrusted with a great deal of responsibility, which included arguing motions, examination of witnesses, preparation of motions, and preparation of jury charges. This case challenged many current practices within the Charleston County Police Department. This case caused the Charleston County Police Department to evaluate and change many of their policies and practices;

(b) Hymes v. Khoury, This case was a simple auto accident, which I did not think would be successful. This case taught me the importance of the strategic application of the civil rules of procedure and case law. Although this case took one (1) day to try, the jury deliberated for two (2) days and returned a verdict in favor of my client;

(c) In Re: The Estate of Joseph J. White, Jr., et al., This was a probate court case. The central issue in this case involved the paternity of a two (2) year old minor child of the victim of an automobile fatality. The case involved an intense three (3) day probate trial. The trial involved approximately forty (40) witnesses. It also involved a unique question of law concerning the jurisdictional conflict between the probate and family courts. A favorable ruling was returned by the Probate Judge and the Circuit Court on appeal. In addition, I handled the wrongful death cause of action on behalf of the minor which resulted in a substantial recovery for the minor;

(d) Ashby v. Ashby, In this case I represented the plaintiff/husband who sought custody of his three (3) children. The Court applied the primary caretaker doctrine in awarding custody to the father. The case also involved issues of equitable distribution, adultery, child support and attorney's fees;

(e) Thompson v. Polite, This case involved a hotly contested issue of visitation between the plaintiff/husband and his minor son. The defendant/wife was adamant in her refusal to allow visitation. My client was awarded reasonable visitation at the Temporary Hearing of this case. Prior to the Final Hearing the parties submitted to mediation. Through this process they were able to come to an amicable agreement regarding visitation and the rearing of their child. This case reinforced my belief in the value of alternative dispute resolution (mediation) as a method of improving the efficient use of court time and resources."

Judge Jefferson reported that she has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.

Judge Jefferson reported that she has held the following judicial offices:

"(a) Resident Family Court Judge of 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);

(b) Currently a Resident Circuit Court Judge of 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."

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);

(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 further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"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 of 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 Supreme Court Bench."

Judge Jefferson is not married. She has no 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;

(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 2006-2007; Vice President 2007-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; 1993-2003;

(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; 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 2002-2006, User Education Sub-Committee;

(p) Co-Chair 9th Circuit Courthouse Security Commission 2006;

(q) Associate Acting Justice South Carolina Supreme Court for the terms November 2, 2006, 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; General Sessions, Jan. 1-July 31, 2008;

(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 (had to decline due to the demands of the Court Schedule);

(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);

(y) Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission 2007-present;

(z) S.C. Liberty Fellow-Class of 2009. 2007-present."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Jefferson is well qualified for the Supreme Court and cited as examples that she appears to have a vast knowledge of the law and the diverse legal background she offers. They noted Judge Jefferson's professionalism and compassion for litigants in her courtroom. They further noted that she is very well respected on the Circuit Court bench where she has served for the past six and a half years.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Jefferson qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Supreme Court.

John W. Kittredge
Supreme Court, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kittredge meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Kittredge was born in 1956. He is 51 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 $398.23 in campaign expenditures for postage, paper and envelopes.

Judge Kittredge 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;

Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.

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

"(a) Jan. 2000 15th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(b) May 2000 Circuit Judges' Association Meeting;

(d) Jan. 2001 16th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(e) May 2001 Circuit Judges' Association Conference;

(f) Aug. 2001 Annual Judicial Conference;

(g) Jan. 2002 17th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(h) May 2002 Circuit Judges' Association Conference;

(i) Aug. 2002 Annual Judicial Conference;

(j) Jan. 2003 18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(k) May 2003 Circuit Judges' Association Conference;

(l) May 2004 Circuit Judges' Association Conference (presenter);

(m) Aug. 2003 Annual Judicial Conference;

(n) Aug. 2004 Annual Judicial Conference;

(o) Dec. 2004 Greenville County CLE (presenter);

(p) May 2005 Family Court Judges' Conference (presenter);

(q) Aug. 2006 Family Court JCLE 'Mini Summit';

(r) Aug. 2006 Annual Judicial Conference;

(s) Nov. 2006 Annual ABOTA CLE (presenter);

(t) March 2007 App. Court Judges' Conf for SC and NC App. Judges;

(u) May 2007 Family Court Judges' Conference (presenter);

(v) Aug. 2007 SCTLA Conference (presenter);

(w) Aug. 2007 Annual Judicial Conference;

(x) Oct. 2007 JCLE for SC Masters (presenter)."

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

"I have also spoken to school children, including middle and high school students. I have further spoken to college level students. I have spoken to other groups, such as law enforcement officers."

Judge Kittredge reported that he has published the following:

"(a) Around 1978 I wrote a paper entitled The Inevitability of Police Discretion which was published in the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association magazine;

(b) An article on juvenile justice was published in the Greenville News in December, 1992;

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 prior to his election to the bench 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:

"(a) 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;

(b) 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;

(c) 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 the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: two times per year;

(b) State: weekly."

Judge Kittredge reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 25%;

(b) Criminal: 2 to 5%;

Judge Kittredge reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: approximately 10%;

(b) Non-jury: approximately 90%."

Judge Kittredge provided that prior to his election to the bench he most often served as follows: "I was sole or lead counsel in the majority of the cases. I was associate counsel in approximately 25 to 30%."

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

"(a) State v. Floyd McDuffie, (approximately 1985, Greenville County General Sessions Court.) I prosecuted many cases as an Assistant Solicitor, and this case was significant to me. It involved a highly publicized murder and robbery. Interesting legal questions arose during the trial. The defendant was convicted of armed robbery and manslaughter and sentenced to jail;

(b) State v. Donnie Robinson, (approximately 1986, Greenville County General Sessions Court.) I prosecuted this defendant for armed robbery and kidnapping. This was a highly publicized case in which the defendant kidnapped the victim at gunpoint in the parking lot of Haywood Mall in Greenville. The defendant then forced the victim to withdraw money from her bank account. The victim eventually escaped from the defendant. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts and he received a life sentence;

(c) Stogner v. City of Mauldin, 84-CP-23-680. I, along with my law partner, represented the defendant. Plaintiff filed a myriad of claims (including a 42 USC Section 1983 cause of action) arising from a challenge to the zoning ordinance of the City of Mauldin. The case was tried to a jury. Judgment for defendant at the close of evidence;

(d) Collins Music v. Terry et al., 87-CP-23-2982. I represented plaintiff in this common pleas action. The case received substantial publicity. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, tortuous interference with contractual relations and unfair trade practices. Plaintiff prevailed. Judgment was entered in the approximate amount of $18,000 actual damages and $100,000 punitive damages. The case was appealed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (303 S.C. 358, 400 S.E.2d 783 (1991)). I also handled the appeal;

(e) First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 90-CP-23-955. I represented the church (on a pro bono basis) in its petition to close a road on its property. The road closing was necessary to enable the church to expand its facility to accommodate its growing membership. This was far more than a typical road closing case. For political reasons, the church's petition was adamantly opposed by the City of Mauldin. Significant publicity surrounded the case and trial. Following a lengthy trial, judgment was entered in favor of the church and the road was closed, thus enabling the church to expand its facilities. I was elected to the family court bench while the case was on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed, 308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992)."

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

"I am submitting the briefs I was able to retrieve from prior submissions to the JMSC. The firm in which I practiced law no longer exists. Please note that as an appellate judge, I have authored hundreds of opinions, of which more than 60 are published as of this date. These opinions provide further evidence of my knowledge of the law, substantive and procedural.

(a) Collins Music v. Terry, 303 S.C. 358, 400 S.E.2d 783 (Ct. App. 1991);

(b) S.C. Tax Commission v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 305 S.C. 183, 407 S.E.2d 627 (1991). I argued the case before the Supreme Court, but I did not write the brief;

(d) Burns v. Burns, 293 S.C. 1, 358 S.E.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1987);

(e) Lineberger v. Lineberger, 303 S.C. 248, 399 S.E.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1990)."

The following is Judge Kittredge's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled: "I have not, as an attorney, personally handled a criminal appeal. Please see my note above where I refer to my many opinions as an appellate judge."

Judge Kittredge reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"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. The Court of Appeals is an intermediate, error-correction appellate court."

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

"In the sixteen plus years on the South Carolina bench, I have heard thousands of cases. To each litigant who has ever appeared in my court, that case was significant to him or her. Beyond my twelve year service as a trial judge, I was privileged to join the Court of Appeals in 2003. Because the position I seek is an appellate position, I will answer this inquiry primarily by citing opinions I have published as an appellate judge.

(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 a Doyle v. Ohio challenge as well as 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 addresses 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) 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 (7 to 2) reversing 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);

(e) 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.;

(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 "a most competent and excellent jurist." They noted that "his qualifications exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."

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; Sunday School teacher and member of Denominational Concerns Committee;

(b) Greenville Saltwater Sportfishing Club;

(d) Greenville Country Club (no longer member)."

(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Kittredge has an outstanding reputation as a jurist, which is reflected in his recent survey by the Bar; and that all jurists in this State should strive to achieve the type of judicial temperament he maintains. They noted his great intellect and ability to articulate his knowledge of the law. They further noted this was demonstrated by Judge Kittredge's outstanding performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure Test.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Kittredge qualified and nominated him for election to the Supreme Court.

A. Eugene Morehead, III
Supreme Court, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Morehead meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Morehead was born in 1946. He is 61 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 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;

Judge Morehead 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 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:

"Conference/CLE Name Date(s)

(a) Annual Judicial Conference 08/22/07;

(b) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial

Lawyers 08/02/07;

(d) Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative

Purposes in Family Court 02/15/07;

(e) Family Law Seminar at South

Carolina Bar Convention 01/26/07;

(f) South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference

12/01/06;

(g) National Judicial College Judges/Journalists Seminar 09/28/06;

(h) Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution Training 09/08/06;

(i) Annual Judicial Conference 08/23/06;

(j) Mini Summit on Justice for Children 08/22/06;

(k) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Trial Lawyers Convention 08/03/06;

(l) Annual Family Court Judges Conference 04/26/06;

(m) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Bar Convention 01/27/06;

(n) Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar

on Procedure and Substantive Law 12/09/05;

(o) South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference 12/02/05;

(p) Annual South Carolina Solicitor's

Association Conference 09/25/05;

(q) Annual Judicial Conference 08/24/05;

(r) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Trial Lawyers Convention 08/04/05;

(s) Drug Court Planning Initiative 07/12/05;

(t) Annual Family Court Judges Conference 04/27/05;

(u) Drug Court Planning Initiative 03/02/05;

(v) Family Law Seminar at South

Carolina Bar Convention 01/21/05;

(w) Seminar for Chief Administrative

Family Court Judges 12/10/04;

(x) Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar

on Procedure and Substantive Law 12/08/04;

(y) South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference 12/03/04;

(z) Annual Judicial Conference 08/19/04;

(aa) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial

Lawyers Convention 08/05/04;

(bb) Annual Family Court Judges Conference 04/28/04;

(cc) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Bar Convention 01/23/04;

(dd) South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference 12/05/03;

(ee) Annual South Carolina Solicitor's

Association Conference 09/28/03;

(ff) Annual Judicial Conference 08/21/03;

(gg) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Trial Lawyers Convention 08/07/03;

(hh) Annual Family Court Judges Conference 04/30/03;

(ii) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Bar Convention 01/24/03;

(jj) South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference 12/06/02;

(kk) Annual Judicial Conference 08/22/02;

(ll) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Trial Lawyers Convention 08/01/02;

(mm) Annual Family Court Judges Conference 05/01/02;

(nn) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Bar Convention 01/25/02."

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

"(a) From 1976 to 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) In 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;

(x) In February, 2007, organized a seminar for the Chief Administrative Judges for Family Court in the Sixteen Judicial Circuits discussing their responsibilities;

(y) In April, 2007, again organized the educational component for 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 a Legislative Update and presentations by the Court of Appeals, Fatherhood Initiative, John de la Howe School, and System of Care-Family Solutions-DJJ;

(z) In July, 2007, organized and moderated the entire three-day school for the new Family Court Judges recently elected."

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 prior to his election to the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "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. Serial Number was social security number. After active duty, spent four years in the Standby Reserve and received my Honorable Discharge on June 20, 1974."

Judge Morehead reported 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:

"(a) 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;

(b) 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;

(c) 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. In June, 2007, sat on the South Carolina Supreme Court by special appointment of the Chief Justice as a result of a conflict with one of the Associate Justices."

Judge Morehead reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: 5 to 10 time per year;

(b) State: 150 to 175 times per year."

Judge Morehead reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 35%;

(b) Criminal: 10%;

(d) Other: 15%."

Judge Morehead reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 30 to 35%;

(b) Non-jury: 65 to 70%."

Judge Morehead provided that prior to his election to the bench he most often served as follows: "In 95% of cases tried, I was sole counsel."

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

"(a) Falk v. Sadler, 341 S.C. 281, 533 S.E.2d 350 (S.C.App. 2000). This case dealt with the liability of a Guardian ad Litem in a Family Court setting immediately prior to the new statute which was subsequently passed by the Legislature. The decision stood for the proposition that a Guardian ad Litem, even though having quasi judicial immunity, could be individually liable if acting outside the scope of authority;

(b) deBondt v. Carlton Motorcars, Inc., 342 S.C. 254, 536 S.E.2d 399 (S.C.App. 2000). The case is significant and unusual in that it examines the regulations under the Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act along with the Unfair Trade Practices Act. It gives a good discussion on fraud and misrepresentation along with specific performance. It further points out the problem with hearing summary judgment motions by two different judges at different times - one judge concluding that the co-defendant was responsible with the other judge, likewise, finding that the opposite co-defendant was responsible;

(c) Richardson v. City of Columbia, 340 S.C. 515, 532 S.E.2d 10 (S.C.App. 2000). A good analysis of how the South Carolina Tort Claims Act and the South Carolina Recreational Use statute can be reconciled where both could be applicable in certain situations. The case further analyzes liability under the Tort Claims Act discussing defect, actual notice and failure to correct;

(d) Davis v. Traylor, 340 S.C. 150, 530 S.E.2d 385 (S.C. App. 2000). The importance of this case surrounded the use of demonstrative evidence in the setting of an abuse of discretion standard for reversal;

(e) Hubbard v. Taylor, 339 S.C. 583, 529 S.E.2d 549 (S.C. App. 2000). A good, basic torts case on the issue of negligence, proximate cause and foreseeability."

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

"Again, it has been twenty-two years since I practiced law; but while in active practice, I did handle appellate work. The last two reported cases are Gibson v. Florence Country Club, 282 S.C. 384, 318 S.E.2d 365 (1984) and Mutual Savings and Loan Association v. McKenzie, 274 S.C. 630, 266 S.E.2d 423 (1980). Since this is a position for appellate work, in addition to the five published cases attached above in paragraph 19 [mentioned in above paragraph], I am enclosing five additional Opinions which were authored but unpublished.

(a) Spartanburg National Bank v. DTF, Inc.;

(b) Sanders v. Wal-Mart Cities Stores;

(d) Joyce Lynn K. McDowell v. F.L. McDowell;

(e) Wilton T. Kay v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company."

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

"Attached are five criminal cases that I authored while sitting on the Court of Appeals and which have been published.

(a) State v. Benjamin, 341 S.C. 160, 533 S.E.2d 606 (S.C. App. 2000). This case deals with the interpretation of the habitual offender statute;

(b) State v. Dinkins, 339 S.C. 597, 529 S.E.2d 557 (S.C. App. 2000). This case was affirmed by the Supreme Court at 345 S.C. 412, 548 S.E.2d 217 (2001);

(c) State v. Thomason, 341 S.C. 524, 534 S.E.2d 708 (S.C. App. 2000). Deals with a double jeopardy claim on a guilty plea;

(d) In the Interest of Robert R., 340 S.C. 242, 531 S.E.2d 301 (S.C. App. 2000). Deals with the standard South Carolina has adopted on the admissibility of scientific evidence and what steps the Court must take in determining that determination;

(e) State v. Muldrow, 340 S.C. 450, 531 S.E.2d 541 (S.C. App. 2000). This is a case in which I dissented with the majority's interpretation of armed robbery under our statute. It was appealed to the Supreme Court with the Supreme Court reversing the majority and agreeing with my dissent. See, State v. Muldrow, 348 S.C. 264, 559 S.E.2d 847 (2002)."

Judge Morehead reported that he has held the following judicial offices:

"(a) 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;

(b) Upon 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. In June, 2007, sat on the South Carolina Supreme Court by special appointment of the Chief Justice as a result of a conflict with one of the Associate Justices."

With respect to Judge Morehead's most significant orders or opinions, Judge Morehead referred to his five most significant litigated matters, and his account of the five civil and criminal appeals he has personally handled as discussed above.

Judge Morehead further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) In the Fall of 2002, was a candidate for Seat #6 on the South Carolina Court of Appeals;

(b) In the Spring of 2007, was a candidate for Seat #5 on the South Carolina Supreme Court."
(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 the office he is seeking. They noted that he is "very impressive, studious, very committed to the values of the Court and is qualified for the position of associate justice."

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. 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;

(b) 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;

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 44 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.) Presently serve as Chairman of the Boys State Committee for the State Department of the American Legion;

(d) Member of the Pee Dee Area Citadel Club (past President);

(e) 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);

(f) Worked with Encore Theatre Company and the Florence Little Theatre on its Board of Directors;

(g) 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);

(h) Served as Chairman of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Juvenile Justice Youth Council (Chairman from 1997 to 1999);

(i) Served on the Governor's Juvenile Justice Task Force from 1997 to 1999;

(j) Presently operating a Juvenile Drug Court in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit from 2002 to present."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Morehead has an outstanding reputation and is known for his great character on the Family Court Bench. They noted that his twenty two years of experience on the judiciary and his keen intellect would enable him to represent the State well on the Supreme Court. They further noted his extensive contributions to the public through his service to his community.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Morehead qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Supreme Court.

Robert S. Armstrong
Court of Appeals, Seat 6

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

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

Judge Armstrong was born in 1956. He is 51 years old and a resident of Seabrook, 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 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;

Judge Armstrong 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 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:

"Conference/CLE Name Date(s)

(a) Annual Judicial Conference August 2002 - 2007;

(b) Annual Family Court

Judges Conference April 2002 - 2007;

Conference December 2001 - 2006;

(d) Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar December 2001 - 2006;

(e) South Carolina Trial Lawyers

Annual Convention August 2002 - 2007;

(f) National Judicial College April 22 - 25, 2003."

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

"(a) October, 1998, Solicitors Convention - I spoke on issues regarding juvenile crime;

(b) November, 1998, Bench/Bar CLE - I gave a presentation on issues in juvenile cases;

(d) December, 2001, South Carolina Bar/CLE - I spoke on family court cases that arose during the year;

(e) October, 2002, Solicitors Convention - My topics were guilty pleas and miscellaneous issues from the judicial perspective;

(f) January, 2003, Guardian ad Litem Certification Training - This was a two day training session for certification under the new GAL statute. My topics were the hearsay rule and rules of evidence;

(g) August, 2004, Annual Judicial Conference - I was on a panel that discussed issues of professional responsibility and the new oath for lawyers and judges;

(h) August, 2005, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention - I was part of a panel that discussed current issues in family law;

(i) October, 2005, Solicitors Convention - My topic was issues that could arise when dealing with the press during juvenile trials;

(j) July, 2007, New Judges School - I gave a presentation on alimony;

(k) September, 2007, Solicitors Convention - My subject was juvenile prosecution."

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."
(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 prior to his election to the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Armstrong reported that he has held the following public offices:

"(a) Assistant Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1985 - 1990;

(b) Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1990 - 1995."
(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;

(d) Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, 1990 - 1995;

(e) Private Practice, 1995 - 1998. I was a sole practitioner with primary emphasis on family, criminal, and personal injury cases;

(f) Family Court Judge, 1998 - Present."

Judge Armstrong reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: 0%;

(b) State: 100%;

Judge Armstrong reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 15%;

(b) Criminal: 65%;

Judge Armstrong reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 75%;

(b) Non-jury: 25%."

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

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

"(a) Hughes v. Hughes, 95-DR-18-1522; 95-DR-18-1526. I represented the wife in a divorce action in Dorchester County. Issues involved adultery, physical cruelty, and custody;

(b) Broxton v. Broxton, 95-DR-25-333. I represented the wife in a divorce action in Hampton County. She was granted a divorce on the ground of adultery;

d) State v. McConnell, 449 S.E.2d 778 (Ct. App. 1994). I was appointed special prosecutor in Dorchester County. The defendant was convicted of reckless homicide;

(e) State v. Anderson, 91-GS-07-413; 91-GS-07-414. This case involved the prosecution of a defendant accused of sexually assaulting and kidnapping a deputy's wife. He was convicted."

The following is Judge Armstrong's account of a civil appeal he has personally handled:

"Jasper County Department of Social Services v. William Bostic and Jackie Bostic; In Re: Jack and Daniel Bostic, Juveniles under the age of seventeen; Ex Parte: Darrell Thomas Johnson, Jr. I represented the respondent, Jasper County DSS. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court in Memorandum Opinion, Number 92-MO-181, filed July 6, 1992."

Judge Armstrong reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Armstrong reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"I was elected to Seat 3, The Family Court, 14th Judicial Circuit, on May 8, 1998, and have served continually since."

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

"(a) Beauchamp v. Beauchamp, 2000 UP 612;

(b) Bakala v. Bakala, 576 S.E.2d 156 (2003);

(d) Marquez v. Caudill, et.al., 2004-DR-26-347;

(e) Ex Parte: Government Employee's Insurance Company, In Re: Ronnie Cooper, v. Yolanda Goethe, Opinion Number 26315."

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 and 2006. I was found qualified, but not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Armstrong to be "a very eminently qualified and a most highly regarded candidate, who would honorably serve on the Court of Appeals bench."

Judge Armstrong is not married. He has two stepchildren.

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 of the University Club;

(b) Former member of the Hampton County Country Club."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Armstrong is a well-rounded and personable Family Court Judge. They noted his effective service for the past nine years on the Family Court bench. They further noted that he is considered a well-regarded jurist who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Armstrong qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Timothy L. Brown
Court of Appeals, Seat 6

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 as a Court of Appeals judge.

Judge Brown was born in 1946. He is 61 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 not spent any money, but that he anticipates making $472 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;

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:

"(a) Family Law Section 01/25/2002;

(b) Family Court Judges Conference 05/01/2002;

(d) Judicial Conference 08/22/2002;

(e) Family Court Bench/Bar 12/06/2002;

(f) Tips From the Bench III 12/13/2002;

(g) Family Law Part II 01/24/2003;

(h) Family Court Judges Conference 04/30/2003;

(i) SC Trial Lawyers Conference 08/07/2003;

(j) Judicial Conference 08/21/2003;

(k) Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar 12/05/2003;

(l) Tips From the Bench IV 12/12/2003;

(m) Family Law Section 01/23/2004;

(n) Family Court Judges Conference 04/28/2004;

(o) SC Trial Lawyers Convention 08/05/2004;

(p) Judicial Conference 08/19/2004;

(q) Judicial Oath of Office 08/29/2004;

(r) Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar 12/03/2004;

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

(t) Family Court Judges Conference 04/27/2005;

(u) SC Trial Lawyers Convention 08/03/2005;

(v) Family Court Bench/Bar 12/02/2005;

(w) Tips From the Bench 12/09/2005;

(x) Family Law Section 01/27/2006;

(y) Family Court Judges Conference 04/26/2006;

(z) Orientation for New Family Court Judges 07/10/2006;

(aa) SC Trial Lawyers Convention 08/04/2006;

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

(cc) Bench/Bar Seminar 12/01/2006;

(dd) Family Law Section 01/26/2007;

(ee) Family Court Judges Conference 01/26/2007;

(ff) SC Trial Lawyers Convention 08/02/2007;

(gg) Judicial Conference 08/22/2007."

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

"(a) Other courses have been taught; unable to locate material;

(b) Business Law at Greenville Tech;

(d) Experts; How & When to Use In Trials;

(e) 1998 Family Court Bench/Bar Update 11/6/1998 Topic

Enforceability of Agreements between Spouses;

(f) 2000 Family Court Bench/Bar - 12/01/2000; Topic Abuse

and Neglect Cases: Out of Court Statements by Children;

(g) 2001 Tips From the Bench II - 12/14/2001; Topic -

Divorce/Separation Proceedings;

(h) 2002 Tips From the Bench III - 12/13/2002 - Topic -

Custody and Termination of Parental Rights;

(i) Children's Law Office - oral lectures, various topics - 06/07

(yr.);

(j) Lectures during Guardian ad Litem training - law &

procedure - 06/07 (yr.);

(k) Lectures for Charleston & Greenville County Bars and American Trial Lawyers Association - 06/07 (yr.);

(l) New Judges School - 06/07 (yr.);

(m) Course on Custody Law - 06/07 (yr.);

(n) Course on Contempt Law - 06/07 (yr.);

(o) How to be a Good Witness;

(p) Expert Witness Consideration & Law -

combined legal/forensic economist continuing education;

(q) Organized December 2007 Mandatory Bench/Bar Continuing

Education."

Judge Brown reported that he has published the following:

"(a) 'Terminating Parental Rights, 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). (Note: The material covers many topics such as in personam jurisdiction, procedure rules, constitutional issues, which apply to all courts.);

(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, which apply to all courts.);

(c) Also, probably have over twenty (20) pamphlets prepared for various short seminars, some published but not specified above. e.g., Expert Witness; Law of 19-1-180; Agreements/Contracts; Article on Transition from Communist to Free Enterprise based government; Open Thank You to The World War II/Great Depression Generation; Standard Visitation, Parental Guidelines and Restraining Orders; Judge Brown's Personal Judicial Guide; A book on objections is in the process of being completed. (excerpts included)."
(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 prior to his election to the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Brown reported the following military service: "Yes, USMC Sgt.; XXXXXXX; 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:

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

(b) 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;

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

"(a) Civil: 35%;

(b) Criminal: 15%;

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

"(a) Jury: 15 %;

(b) Non-jury: 85 %."

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

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

"(a) For example, early in my legal career I raised the question of equal protection for indigent children. 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 issue was 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);

(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 matter jurisdiction, Rule 60, scrivener's errors, dead man's statute, etc. The key issue presented a case of first impression per the lower court judge who recognized no South Carolina precedent allowing a prior beneficiary who was to remain so per a court order to take over a named beneficiary properly named under insurance law per the terms of the contract/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 party's ability to bind themselves in open court even as to insurance policy contracts. Lane v. Williamsson. 307 SC 230, 414 SE2d 177 (1992);

(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;

(f) I represented a disabled veteran. He was intentionally made an example of to keep him and others like him from coming into a place of business. At trial the judge did not grant punitive damages. The Court of Appeals remanded to set punitive damages. The resulting damages allowed this man disabled in the service of his country to obtain the first home (modular) he ever owned. Payne v. Bouharoun, 292 SC 390, 356 SE2d 438 (Ct. App. 1987);

(g) 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 trials 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 five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Greenville County DSS v. Maxine Allen & Ralph M. Whitworth, Unpublished Opinion No. 93-UP-130 (Respondent). The Solicitor's office signed off on my brief. Also, I did the oral argument. This case was important in that it allowed the use of an expert as to sexual abuse factors and the child's videotaped testimony. As a Respondent's brief, my brief was in part framed by Appellant's issues;

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

(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.

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 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 that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"Elected 5-6-98 and again on 6-1-04; elected by Legislature of South Carolina. 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:

"(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;

(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., 2003-DR-23-4779;

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

(j) James W. Dickert v. Carolyn H. Dickert, 2003-DR-23-4984."

Judge Brown further 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. I ran for the Court of Appeals in 2006 and 2007. I was found qualified but not reported out."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Brown to be "a most competent and excellent jurist and that his qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."

Judge Brown is married to Sharon J. 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;

(d) Saint Andrews Society - no office held."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Brown has a varied background that helps him to understand the perspective of many different people both in and out of the courtroom. They noted Judge Brown is a thoughtful judge with a good judicial temperament. They further noted his strong intellect and scholarly writing, as well as the fact he has ably served on the Family Court bench for nine years.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Brown qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Court of Appeals.

John D. Geathers
Court of Appeals, Seat 6

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

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

Judge Geathers was born in 1961. He is 46 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Geathers 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 1986. Judge Geathers has also been licensed to practice law in North Carolina since 1994.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Judge Geathers 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 Geathers reported that he has made $618 in campaign expenditures for stationary, postage, cards, photography, and printing.

Judge Geathers 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;

Judge Geathers 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 Geathers to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.

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

"(a) 2002 Masters in Trial; Tips From Bench II;

(b) 2003 The CON Contested Case; Writing Credit; 'The Matter Does Not Appear to Me As It Appears To Have Appeared To Me Then,' 15-Nov S.C. Law 27; 'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina,' 18 Wis. Women's L.J. 233;

(d) 2005 Fourth Circuit Update; Barnes Symposium on Religion; Workers Comp Update; Tort Law Update;

(e) 2006 Writing Credit; John D. Geathers & Justin R. Werner, The Regulation of Alcoholic Beverages in South Carolina (2007)."

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

"Lectured at CLE: Appellate Practice in SC, April 30, 1999. Lectured at CLE: The CON Contested Case, May 2, 2003; Lectured for SC Environmental Class, USC Law School, Jan. 28, 2003 and Jan. 16, 2004; Lectured at Bridge The Gap, May 2005."

Judge Geathers reported that he has published the following:

"(a) John D. Geathers & Justin R. Werner, The Regulation Of Alcoholic Beverages in South Carolina (2007);

(b) John D. Geathers, 'The Matter Does Not Appear to Me Now as It Appears to Have Appeared to Me Then': Motions for Reconsideration Before the ALJ Division, S.C. LAW., Nov. 2002, at 27;

(c) John D. Geathers and Justin R. Werner, 'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina, 18 WIS. WOMEN'S L.J. 233 (2003);

(d) John D. Geathers and Justin R. Werner, 'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina, S.C. TRIAL LAW. BULL., Fall 2003, at 14 (Adaptation from article cited above)."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Geathers 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 Geathers reported that prior to his election to the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

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

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

"I was employed for approximately eight months as the OSHA attorney for the South Carolina Department of Labor upon graduation from law school in 1986. I resigned from the Department to accept employment with the Office of Senate Research of the South Carolina Senate, where I became Senior Staff Counsel. Upon being elected to the Administrative Law Court in 1994, I subsequently resigned from employment with the Senate. I have served as an ALJ for the last twelve years."

Judge Geathers reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"I am in my third term as an Administrative Law Judge. As a judge, I preside over and render final written decisions in cases of both complexity and simplicity, cases with millions of dollars at stake and those impacting few dollars, and trials litigated by skillful counsel and those pressed by pro se individuals. I preside over administrative hearings which are virtually identical to civil bench trials in terms of procedure, evidentiary rules and protocol, and finality of decision.

I am responsible for hearing a broad range of contested and appellate cases from at least eighteen state agencies and governmental entities, with several of these presenting multiple types of cases. Selected examples include wage disputes, injunctive relief hearings, certificate of need cases, environmental and health permitting cases, state and county tax matters, appellate cases from thirty-seven professional licensing boards, and inmate grievances, probation, parole disputes, and motor vehicle DUI cases. With regard to the inmate cases, the matters involve conditions of confinement and sentence calculations; as to probation and parole cases, the matters involve eligibility disputes; and as to DMV cases, the matters involve the suspension of driver's licenses for DUI .

While I have not presided over any criminal or civil cases, in my current capacity, I have monitored pretrial discovery, imposed and enforced scheduling orders, and conducted administrative trials from opening to closing arguments, while applying evidentiary and procedural rules and ruling on various motions raised before, during and after trial. Further, in my capacity as an ALJ, I apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in contested case matters and the substantial evidence test in appellate cases that come before me-the same standards of review employed by the Court of Appeals.

I believe my experience as an Administrative Law Judge, especially the extensive writing responsibilities and the appellate adjudications will translate well on the Court of Appeals.

Also, to prepare for the transition, I have reacquainted myself with and expanded my knowledge of the civil and criminal law by reviewing the leading treatises in these areas, civil and criminal rules of procedure, appellate rules of practice, and advance sheets published over the last year."

Judge Geathers reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

Judge Geathers reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

Judge Geathers reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the bench as follows:

Judge Geathers provided the following with regard to his service as co-counsel, lead counsel, or sole counsel prior to his election to the bench:

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

"(a) Marlboro Park Hosp. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, Nos. 98-ALJ-07-0734-CC & 98-ALJ-07-0735-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. July 27, 2000), aff'd, 358S.C. 573, 595 S.E.2d 851 (Ct. App. 2004)(in presiding over a contested case, the ALJ conducts a de novo hearing with the presentation of testimony and evidence and issues a decision with detailed findings of fact supporting the decision);

(b) The Ocean Course Golf Club, Ltd. v. Charleston County Assessor, No. 03-ALJ-17-0471-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Court Jan. 2005) (personal property and income derived there from must be excluded from real estate valuation of golf course property for ad valorem tax purposes), cited in Findings of 2005 Act 149, S589;

(c) Sierra Club v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envt'l. Control and Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC, No. 04-ALJ-07-0126-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Court Oct. 20005) (decision to renew Radioactive Material License for the operation of the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Barnwell);

(d) Macalloy Corporation v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, No. 01-ALJ-07-0099-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. Oct. 30 2001) (petitioner operated a ferrochromium alloy smelting facility until 1998; insufficient evidence to sustain regulatory Emergency order prohibiting the harvesting of shellfish in Shipyard Creek, as scientific evidence militated a contrary result);

(e) Lexington County Health Services District, Inc., d/b/a Lexington Medical Center v. S.C. Health & Envtl. Control Sisters of Charity Providence Hospital and Palmetto Health Alliance, Palmetto Health Richland, No. 04-AlJ-07-0365-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. Sept. 15 2006) (petitioner challenged the denial of its Certificate of Need application for the development of an open-heart surgery program and therapeutic cardiac catheterization program)."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Geathers to be "a very highly qualified and most outstanding regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals bench."

Judge Geathers is married to Doris W. Geathers. He has two children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar (admitted 1986);

(b) North Carolina Bar (admitted 1994);

The Commission commented that Judge Geathers's keen intellect as demonstrated by his performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure test would serve him well on the Court of Appeals. They noted that he is a student of the law as evidenced by his well developed sense of judicial philosophy. They further noted he has ably served on the Administrative Law Court for thirteen years.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Geathers qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

J. Mark Hayes, II
Court of Appeals, Seat 6

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 as a Court of Appeals judge.

Judge Hayes was born in 1958. He is 49 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, 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 1984.
(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;

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) 2007 Annual Judicial Conference 8/22/07;

(b) 2007 Circuit Judges Conference 5/16/07;

(d) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update 1/26/07;

(e) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/06;

(f) 20th SC Circuit Judges' Conference 5/10/06;

(g) 21st Annual Criminal Law Update 1/27/06;

(h) 4th Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/06;

(i) 2005 Annual Judicial Conference 8/24/05;

(j) 2005 SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/11-3/05;

(k) 20th Annual Criminal Law Update 1/21/05;

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

(m) General Jurisdiction 10/11/04;

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

(o) Judicial Conference 8/19/04;

(p) 2004 SC Circuit Judge's Conference 5/5/04;

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

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

(s) Judicial Conference 8/21/03;

(t) 2003 SCTLA Annual Convention 8/7/03;

(u) 2003 Orientation for Judges 7/7/03;

(v) 2003 SC Circuit Judges' Conference 5/7/03;

(w) Tips from the Bench III 12/13/02;

(x) Auto Torts XXV 12/6-7/02."

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

"(a) 2007: Scheduled presenter for the Wofford College Judicial Symposium in September on The Constitution: The Third Branch of Government, an Insider's View. Topic: The Judiciary and the Media;

(b) 2006: S.C. Budget and Control Board/Insurance Reserve Fund Law Enforcement Defense Counsel Seminar. Topic: S.C. Lawyer Disciplinary Process/Ethics;

(d) 2004: Solicitors' Annual Conference, panel discussion on recent judicial decisions;

(e) 2003: S.C. Worker's Compensation Claimant's fall meeting, legal update and panel discussion;

(f) 1999: Instructor through the Lorman Institute on the educational issue of 'Hot Topics in South Carolina School Law', focusing on search and seizure issue in schools and drug testing."

Judge Hayes reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(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 prior to his election to the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following public offices:

"(a) Commission Member - Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. Appointed approx. 1994;

(b) Chairman - Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium Commission. 2000-2003. Appointed by Spartanburg County Council."
(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 1984.

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

"(a) August 1984 to July 1985: Judicial clerk to the Hon. E.C. Burnett, III, then Circuit Court Judge for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of South Carolina;

(b) August 1985 to December 1990: Associate with the general practice firm of Burts, Turner, Hammett, Harrison, and Rhodes; after eighteen months, full partner. Duties included general trial work in both civil and criminal matters. Shortly after becoming associated with the firm, specialty area became education-related law;

(c) January 1, 1991: Partner in the firm of Harrison and Hayes. The character of my practice became more focused on education law, appellate practice, and complex civil litigation;

(d) In January 2000: The law firm of Harrison, White, Smith, Hayes & Coggins was formed. Partner until May 2003. My primary focus in the practice was complex civil litigation, complex insurance coverage cases, appellate practice, education law, and assistance with complex criminal litigation;

(e) 1991-2003: Performed appellate work arguing numerous times in South Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals."

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

"(a) Federal: frequent;

(b) State: frequent."

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

"(a) Civil: approx 85%;

(b) Criminal: approx 10%;

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

"(a) Jury: 5%;

(b) Non-jury: 50%."

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

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

"(a) S.C. School for the Deaf and the Blind v. Altreo Quattlebaum, United States District Court of South Carolina, C/A No. 7:01-3294-24. This matter was equitable in nature wherein SCSDB sought a restraining order to prevent the readmission of this potentially violent and dangerous student to the campus subsequent to the closure of a program jointly conducted by the Mental Health Department and SCSDB for emotionally and/or behaviorally challenged students. The significance of this case is that it arose out of a factual situation that potentially could have exposed children already suffering from handicapping conditions to two students who had demonstrated a potential for violence to themselves and to others. This case filtered from underlying systemic issues in South Carolina as they relate to the management and care of severely mentally impaired children. A 14-page order was issued from the Honorable Margaret Seymour, U.S. District Court Judge, in favor on SCSDB, but the order was issued as an unpublished opinion;

(b) Murray v. Broad River Electrical Cooperative, South Carolina State Circuit Court. This case was significant because it involved a theory of liability against an electric cooperative for failure to inspect the location of electrical transmission lines. The trial of the case demanded a historical review of the practices of an electrical cooperative, the interplay of federal governmental regulations, and common law tort theories. Once a verdict was issued, the case also required application of the Workers' Compensation statute that relates to liens against recovery from a third party. This case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. No appeal was made of the case;

(c) Adams v. Texfi, 341 S.E. 401, 535 S.E.2d 124 (2000); Adams v. Texfi, 330 S.C. 305, 498 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. App. 1998); Adams v. Texfi, 320 S.C. 213, 464 S.E.2d 109 (1995); Adams v. Texfi, 314 S.C. 313, 443 S.E.2d 913 (S.C. App. 1994). Adams v. Texfi lasted almost ten years from the time the original Form 50 was filed with the Worker's Compensation Commission seeking payments for death benefits. The case dealt with a previously novel workers' compensation provision that involved showing appropriate dependency for purposes of a step-child to receive workers' compensation death benefits. I argued this case twice before the South Carolina Supreme Court. All four published citations involve this case;

(d) J. Samuel Coakley, Individually and as Trustee of a Special Needs Trust for Christian Coakley v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., Scott Mitchell, et al. 98-CP-42-2287, South Carolina State Circuit Court. This case was a declaratory judgment action for secondary liability insurance coverage that arose from a one-car accident where a young 16-year-old passenger was left a quadriplegic. Prior to the filing of the insurance coverage case, the negligence action was filed against the at-fault driver and discovery was conducted. After the depositions of the driver were taken, the automobile accident case was resolved but was done so under a release that expressly preserved the secondary liability insurance issues of coverage and stacking of policies. The release also expressly set forth some factual stipulations. Additionally, to resolve the automobile accident, a Special Needs Trust was established as allowed under Medicaid/Medicare guidelines. Subsequently, as part of the secondary insurance coverage case, it was asserted the insurance company attempted to alter the positions taken by it in the prior litigation. A seventeen-page order establishing secondary liability coverage and allowing the stacking of additional policies was prepared and ultimately signed by Judge Derham Cole on March 3, 2003. The Court of Appeals affirmation is located at 363 S.C. 147, 609 S.E.2d 537 (S.C. App. 2005). I assumed the bench prior to the appeal of the case;

(e) Virginia Surratt v. Diversco, Workers' Compensation file #9903593. This was a workers' compensation case that was tried before the Single Commissioner and reviewed by the Full Commission Panel. While monetarily not a significant case in comparison to many others, this case created an exception to the exception that injuries that occur during travel to and from work are not compensable. The claimant was a poorly educated, minimum-wage janitorial worker. Her employer picked her up from home and took her to work literally one and one-half counties away. She had suffered a back injury as a result of an automobile accident while returning home. She had no health insurance, no money for doctor expenses, and no job. I was able to secure past temporary total benefits, ongoing temporary total benefits, and was able to provide her with medical coverage that included a procedure to attempt to correct her back. Legal significance of this matter pales in comparison to the very real and positive effect this matter had to Ms. Surratt's quality of life."

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

"(a) Justice v. BMG Distributing, Inc., 318 S.C. 359, 458 S.E.2d 35 (1995);

(b) Adams v. Texfi, 330 S.C. 305, 498 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. App. 1998);

(d) Hendrickson v. Spartanburg County School District Five, 307 S.C. 108, 413 S.E.2d 871 (App. 1992);

(e) Corbin v. Kohler Co., 351 S.C.613, 571 S.E.2d 92 (S.C. App. 2002)."

Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following judicial office:
"Elected by the South Carolina General Assembly on April 9, 2003 to fill unexpired term of Gary Clary as South Carolina Circuit Judge At-Large Seat #5. Oath administered on May 22, 2003. Statewide jurisdiction over criminal, civil jury, and civil non-jury matters."

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

"(a) S.C. Electric & Gas Co. v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc. and the S.C.Public Service Commission. This case involved a review of a decision of the PSC to allow an electrical cooperative the right to provide electricity to a newly constructed school even though only part of the property upon which the school facility was located was within the cooperative's geographic area. Legally, this case required an examination of the role of the PSC in deciding statutory construction and the circuit court's proper role in reviewing a decision made by the PSC. The case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion, S.C. Jud. Dept. - Opinion Number 2005-OP-292;

(b) McSherry v. Spartanburg County Council. This case involved a review of a politically charged issue of a $25.00 road maintenance fee adopted by a county council. Legally, the case dealt with a review of the County's procedure used in adopting the fee and the County's compliance with provisions of the Home Rule Act. Even though my order and the Supreme Court's affirmation were critical of the method used by the County at its first reading in the adoption process, the adoption process and the fee were upheld as legally sufficient. Interesting to note, as referenced in the Supreme Court's opinion, the County has since changed its implementation procedures. The Supreme Court's affirmation was issued on February 5, 2007 and can be found in Westlaw at McSherry v. Spartanburg County Council, ___S.E.2d___, 2007 WL415677;

(c) Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. J.C. Faw, Denny's, Inc., 2005-CP-42-604. The 17-page order issued in this case came after a non-jury hearing that involved the interpretation and application of deed restrictions to a commercial area developed by the plaintiff in 1992. The defendant sought to use the property to establish a competing business in violation of the plaintiff's deed restrictions. Even though titled as a Summary Judgment Order, the case was factually intensive and the attorneys conducted a full trial on the issues. The order, therefore, reflects both a factual and legal analysis. In an unpublished opinion, No. 2007-UP-053, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order on February 7, 2007;

(d) Smith v. NCCI, Inc. and Liberty Insurance Corp. This case involved a complex fact pattern wherein a white-collar employee sought Worker's Compensation benefits for both a back injury and a mental injury due to an accident that occurred doing his job as an auditor for an organization related to the Worker's Compensation industry. Legally, the case required the application of the substantial evidence standard of review and application of S.C. Administrative Procedures Act to the decision made by the full Commission. The significance of the case, outside of the unusual fact scenario for a Worker's Compensation case, lies with the mental injury claim. The case presented an extraordinary opportunity to revisit the law as it relates to recovery of benefits for mental injuries and the factual burden which must be met by the person claiming these types of injuries. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order in its opinion located at Smith v. NCCI, Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 631 S.E.2d 268 (S.C. App. 2006);

(e) Turner v. City of Spartanburg, William Barnett, III, et al. This matter was designated as a complex litigation matter specifically assigned to me that involved no less than 17 different lawyers and law firms. The factual allegations of the case stem from a development project partly undertaken by the City of Spartanburg and private developers. When certain payments to the general contractor failed to be paid, a lis pendens was filed against the City and others for payment. My order dated June 19, 2006 supplemented my order of February 10, 2005. These two orders dismissed, initially, various individual defendants and, subsequently, the City of Spartanburg. The plaintiff had attempted the novel approach of asserting a private cause of action against the City based upon S.C. Code Section 29-6-250 which pertains to governments' construction projects and bonding requirements. No appellate review of my orders has been conducted but my understanding is that the case is on appeal."

Judge Hayes further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In the Spring of 2007, I was a candidate for the Supreme Court but was not screened out of committee."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Hayes to be "a most competent and excellent jurist with qualifications well exceeding their expectations."

Judge Hayes is not married. He has no children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) American Bar Association;

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

"(a) Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. Chairman, Board of Commissioners;

(b) Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Grievance Board);

The Commission commented on Judge Hayes's dedicated commitment as a jurist. They noted he is well respected for his temperament and demeanor on the Circuit Court bench. They further noted Judge Hayes's exemplary understanding of the responsibility of the judiciary and also his active role in projects promoting the legal system, including his organization of a recent seminar at Wofford University targeted at finding ways to improve the public image of the judiciary in South Carolina. (At the Public Hearing, Judge Hayes provided the Commission with a copy of his speech at this recent seminar.)
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Hayes qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals

J. Ren� Josey
Court of Appeals, Seat 6

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 as a Court of Appeals judge.

Mr. Josey was born in 1960. He is 47 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 not made any campaign expenditures.

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;

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:

"(a) Attorney Development Program (# 221106IH) 4/26/02;

(b) Preparing the Corporate Witness (# 220716IH) 4/27/02;

(d) Today's Best Practices in Law (# 221980IH) 8/14/02;

(e) Federal Practice in the District (222011) 9/6/02;

(f) Ethics CLE (# 230637IH) 3/8/03;

(g) Sexual & Other Forms of Harassment (# 230773IH) 3/8/03;

(h) Federal Practice in the District (232375) 9/5/03;

(i) Ethics CLE (# 240770IH) 2/29/04;

(j) 3rd Annual Federal Practice in (242519) 9/10/04;

(k) Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE (241357) 10/22/04;

(l) SEC 'Hot Topics' (# 04) 12/16/04;

(m) Attorney ECF Training (251624) 1/7/05;

(n) Section of Litigation Environmental (250372) 1/21/05;

(o) Law Office Technology Committee (260221) 1/26/06;

(p) Fourth Annual Civil Law Update (260222) 1/27/06;

(q) Employment and Labor Law Section (260233) 1/27/06;

(r) Environmental and Natural Resources (260254) 1/28/06;

(s) Bringing Voice of Client into the Firm (260880IH) 2/24/06;

(t) Changes SC Rules of Prof. Conduct (261005IH) 2/25/06;

(u) Mandatory ADR Training (263822) 9/8/06;

(v) Metadata in Electronic Documents (264116(IH) 12/13/06;

(w) 6th Federal Practice in the District of SC (273478) 08/24/07."

Mr. Josey reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) On 9/27/07, I spoke to a Sentencing Guidelines training course sponsored by the United States Probation Office for private attorneys defending the accused in the federal system. I have spoken at such events on many occasions;

(b) Last month, I was the moderator for the S.C. Bar and Federal Bar Association's annual seminar on federal practice. Earlier in the summer, I spoke to law students at both the Florence federal courthouse and the Perry federal courthouse on federal practice and the mission of the Federal Bar Association;

(c) 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');

(d) 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;

(e) Since joining the firm of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney in March of 2001, I have been involved with the Attorney Development program for new associates - directing the program through 2006. 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;

(f) Within the past five years, I have also 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). I also spoke on ethics at today's (9/27/07) sentencing guidelines class."

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 newsletter primarily for law enforcement agencies and I contributed articles to that publication."
(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 that he has held the following public offices:

"(a) 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;

(b) In March of 2001, I was appointed by Florence City Council to serve as a commissioner on the Florence Civic Center Commission - the public body with oversight responsibility 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 facility; like many such public buildings, 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 (we are both from Clemson where I fathers both taught at the University). 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. In addition, I began handling appeals in association with other firms. I enjoyed appellate research and particularly writing.
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 served on the initial Florence County list of mediators who could be appointed. I conducted many mediation sessions in the 1994-1996 period.

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.

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. As United States Attorney, I also personally participated with Assistant United States Attorneys in several important mediation sessions.
During my federal 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. With the growth of electronic communication, I enjoyed reflective writings to my staff on a regular basis.

At the conclusion of my term as United States Attorney, I resigned to aide the transition for the new administration (24 February 2001). 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. I have renewed my certification as a mediator and served in that capacity on several matters. I serve on both state and federal certified lists of available mediators."

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%;

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

"(a) Jury: 65%; My practice is divided between jury and non-jury matters as indicated although most jury matters are ended without trial;

(b) Non-jury: 35%."

Mr. Josey provided that he served equally as co-counsel, lead counsel, and sole counsel.

With respect to Mr. Josey's account of his five most significant litigated matters, he reported that some of the civil and criminal appeals might be considered more significant matters, but he did not want to list the same cases twice since they are already listed in his report.

"(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 well (50 witnesses in 3 days) and resulted in convictions. 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 six civil appeals he has personally handled:

"I have listed six appeals: in five, I alone wrote the brief and in one, I handled the oral argument -- both initially and the rehearing en banc.

(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) Myrtle Beach Shrine Club v. Horry Shrine Club, (Case No. 03-CP-26-744)(unpublished Memo Opinion No. 2006-MO-20)(May 8, 2006). This case represented a most unfortunate dispute between various fraternal organizations. 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;

(f) Gay v. Solicitor Ariail and SLED, (Case No. 06-CP-23-5958). This is my most recent appellate brief (filed July 31, 2007); in fact, the Respondent's brief has not yet been filed. It is another case I have handled solo from beginning to end.

The case is a declaratory judgment action seeking interpretation/application of the Youthful Offender Act in an expungment setting; it challenges an Attorney General's Opinion interpreting (or mis-interpreting) these statutory provisions. The brief, like my briefs in Shores and Trayco, addresses statutory interpretation and application."

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 Solicitor) (she signed the final brief) and I argued the matter before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals;

(c) State v. Michael White, (Case No. 20-GS-10-0604). This was 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 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 success story following his incarceration (employed, continuing his education);

(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 further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) I unsuccessfully ran for Florence County Council in 1994;

(b) 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;

(c) In the Fall of 2006, I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat #4, and was found qualified, but not nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Committee;

(d) In the Spring of this year (2007), I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat #7, and was found qualified and nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Committee. After initial rounds of voting revealed the commitments to other candidates, I dropped out of the race."
(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 qualified based upon his interview in Spring 2007.

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;

(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, 2001-- May 2007 elected Vice-Chair, 2002, assumed Chair 2005;

(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."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Mr. Josey's great intellect, his known analytical abilities, his strong reputation, and his integrity. They noted his recent selection for the second time as one of the Best Lawyers in America for appellate law. They further noted his active involvement with the Bar on the state and local level.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Josey qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Aphrodite Konduros
Court of Appeals, Seat 6

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

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

Judge Konduros was born in 1959. She is 48 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 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;

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:

Orientation School for New Judges 7/8/02;

2002 Annual SCTLA Convention 8/1/02;

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

(b) 2003:

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

SCLWA Conference 4/11/03;

Family Court Judges Conference 4/30/03;

Annual Judges Conference 8/21/03;

Annual SCTLA Conference-Family Law 8/07/03.

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

Family Court Judges Conference 4/28/04;

Judicial Conference 8/19/04;

Judicial Oath of Office 8/19/04;

Seminar for Chief Administrative Judges 12/10/04.

(d) 2005:

SC Bar Family Law Section, Family Court Judges Conference 1/21/05;

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

Family Court Judges Conference 4/27/05;

Annual Judicial Conference 8/24/05;

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

(e) 2006:

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

Family Court Judges Conference 4/26/06;

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

Annual Judges Conference 8/23/06;

Family Court Bench/Bar 12/1/06.

(f) 2007:

Family Law Section 1/26/07;

Family Court Judges Conference 4/19/07;

Annual Judicial Conference 8/22/07."

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;

(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:

"(a) 'Chief of the Catawbas,' Sandlapper Magazine, Summer Issue, 1999;

(b) 'An Unlikely Mentor,' SCWLA 'Briefcase,' Spring Issue 2007."
(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 prior to her election to the bench 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, S.C.

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, S.C.

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

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

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

S.C. Department of Social Services, Greenville, S.C.

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, S.C.

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.

1997-2000: S.C. Department of Social Services, Assistant General Counsel, Columbia, S.C.

Adoptions, DSS prosecution, appellate practice, state procurement, day care licensure appeals, State employee grievances.

2000- 2002: Director, Greenville Department of Services, Greenville, S.C.

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 prior to her election to the bench as follows:

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

(b) State: predominately 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 prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 6%;

(b) Criminal: 4%;

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

"(a) Jury: 5%;

(b) Non-jury: 95%."

Judge Konduros provided that prior to her election to the bench she most often served as "mostly sole counsel, sometimes chief."

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. Father 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 action 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' account of three civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a) Charping v. J.P. Scurry Company, Inc., 296 S.C. 312; 372 SE2d 120 (Ct. App. 1988);

(b) SCDSS v. Beeks, et al., 325 S.C. 243, 481 SE2d 703 (S.Ct. 1997);

Judge Konduros reported the following regarding 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 S.C. 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 S.C. 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;

(d) Lacovelli v. Lacovelli;

(e) Herlong v. Herlong."

Judge Konduros further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"Ran unsuccessfully for SC Court of Appeals, Seat 3, to which the Honorable Paula Thomas was elected on February 7, 2007, and for the SC Court of Appeals, Seat 7, to which the Honorable Daniel Pieper was elected May 23, 2007."
(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 "a most competent and excellent jurist. Her qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."

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 since 1994;

(d) Family Court Judges Association since 2002."

Judge Konduros provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: "I have not belonged to any of these organizations since 2002.

(a) Board member, Prevent Child Abuse Carolina;

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

(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."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Konduros would be an asset to the Court of Appeals. They noted that she was known as a great leader during law school and her leadership skills are also evidenced currently on the Family Court bench. They further noted that she is known for her avocational activities including assisting with the improvement of the law.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Konduros qualified and nominated her for election to the Court of Appeals.

James E. Lockemy
Court of Appeals, Seat 6

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

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

Judge Lockemy was born in 1949. He is 58 years old and a resident of Dillon, South Carolina. Judge Lockemy 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 Judge Lockemy.

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

Judge Lockemy 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;

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

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

"(a) Annual Judicial Conference 2002-07;

(b) Ethics 2000 12/13/05;

(d) Speaker, Several Seminars for the SC Bar and Defense and Trial Lawyers Assoc. 2002-07;"

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

"I have been a presenter on several South Carolina Bar CLE programs as well as at Bar Association conferences. I have lectured on military legal education matters dozens of times."

Judge Lockemy reported that he has published the following:

"'Judging in Kosovo When Duty Calls' was published in the Summer 2006 edition of The Judges' Journal, the official magazine of the Judicial Division of the American Bar Association."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Lockemy 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 Lockemy reported that prior to his election to the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Lockemy reported the following military service:

"(a) United States Army 1974 - 1977;

18th Airborne Corps;

Fort Bragg, North Carolina;

Judge Advocate General Corps;

Discharged Honorably from active duty December 1977;

Rank: Captain;

(b) South Carolina Army National Guard;

February 1978 - April 2003;

Judge Advocate General Corps;

Rank: Colonel;

April 2003 - March 2004;

Multi-National Brigade (East) KFOR 5A;

Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo;

Rank: Colonel;

Honorable Discharge;

(d) South Carolina Army National Guard;

March 2004 - December 2004;

Judge Advocate General Corps;

Rank: Colonel;

Retired - Honorable Discharge;

(e) South Carolina Military Department;

Joint Services Detachment;

Directorate - Governmental Affairs;

Rank: Brigadier General."

Judge Lockemy reported that he has held the following public office:

"Elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives 1982-89."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Lockemy was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.

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

"(a) 1974-77: United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps;

(b) 1978-present: South Carolina Army National Guard Judge Advocate General's Corps;

(d) 1978-79: Minority Counsel, Judiciary Sub-Committee on Antitrust, United States Senate;

(e) 1978-79: Legislative Assistant, United States Senator Strom Thurmond, Washington, D.C.;

(f) 1979-89: Partner, Greene, Lockemy and Bailey, Dillon, South Carolina, General Law Practice;

(g) 1989-present: South Carolina Circuit Court Judge;

(h) 2003-04: Chief Legal Officer, Multi-National Brigade (East), United States Army, Kosovo."

Judge Lockemy reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: 10%;

(b) State: 90%."

Judge Lockemy reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 50%;

(b) Criminal: 30%;

Judge Lockemy reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 65%;

(b) Non-jury: 35%."

Judge Lockemy provided that prior to his election to the bench he most often served as follows: "I was a partner in a 3 member firm that from 1985 until my going on the bench also employed one associate. I think I had primary responsibility over the associate. Principally, my trials were with me as chief counsel assisted by the associate or by one of my partners. Thus, I will answer your question by saying that in my trials I was chief counsel."

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

"I have handled several important civil and criminal matters throughout my career. These included setting standards for lung disease in South Carolina as well as murder cases in General Sessions Court. I have been unable to get the citations of these cases since they were over twenty years ago."

The following is Judge Lockemy's account of civil and criminal appeals he has personally handled:

Judge Lockemy reported that he has held the following judicial offices:

"(a) Current position as Circuit Court Judge At Large, Seat 6;

(b) I have been an acting Associate Justice on the South Carolina Supreme Court on three occasions: once in 2001 and twice in 2006."

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

"(a) State v. Clair E. Luckabaugh, 489 S.E.2d 657, 327 S.C. 495 Aff'd S.C. App. 1997. An attached copy of the Court of Appeals decision in this case adequately states the facts. Key issues involved the admission of evidence of prior acts, including stories written by the defendant concerning sex with comatose victims at trial under SCRE 401 and 404(b). Another issue was the testimony of a deaf, partially mute witness of a prior bad act who could only speak French or in sign language;

(b) State v. Hinson, 2007. Defendant charged with kidnapping two teenaged girls, keeping them in a dungeon and raping them. Case tried by the Attorney General. The jury felt that the State had not proven guilt by a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant;

(c) Pruitt v. S.C. Medical Malpractice Liability JUA, 540 S.E.2d 843, 343 S.C. 335 S.C. 2001. Order and Supreme Court decision is attached. The case involved whether a structured settlement in a malpractice case was altered when the JUA purchased an annuity;

(d) State v. Patty Syphertt, 2002. Death penalty case out of Orangeburg County. The defendant was charged with totally duct taping the body of her victim causing him to suffocate to death. The jury found her guilty of murder but recommended life;

(e) Ezell v. State, 548 S.E.2d 852, 345 S.C. 312 Aff'd as modified S.C. 2001 Acting Justice. This is a case in which I participated as an Acting Associate Justice on the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Court decided that the defendant received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by not including in his appeal an audiotape of an undercover drug purchase. Sixth Amendment issues were also addressed in the case.

I am presently handling one death penalty case as well as a death penalty PCR. Additionally, I have four specially-assigned cases where damages sought are in excess of one million dollars."

Judge Lockemy reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge: "None other than military service."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Lockemy "to be very qualified for the office he is seeking." They commented that "Judge Lockemy impressed the committee as being very dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the law and was inspired to offer for this office based on his desire to continue his study of the essence of the law."

Judge Lockemy is not married. He has two children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) Judge Advocates Association;

(d) South Carolina National Guard Association President, 2005;

(e) Judicial Division, ABA, Editorial Board, The Judges' Journal."

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

"(a) Dillon Kiwanis Club;

President, 1984;

Legion of Honor, 2007;

(b) Dillon County Theatre;

(d) Dillon County Veteran's Committee (Veteran of the Year

1999)."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Judge Lockemy's dedicated commitment and service to his community. They noted his long military career and continued appetite to learn as a student of history and the law. They further noted he would ably serve the judiciary at the next level.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission Judge Lockemy qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Court of Appeals.

John M. Milling
Court of Appeals, Seat 6

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

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

Judge Milling was born in 1948. He is 59 years old and a resident of Darlington, South Carolina. Judge Milling 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 Milling.

Judge Milling 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 Milling reported that he has spent nothing in campaign expenditures except for the cost of postage to submit his application.

Judge Milling 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;

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

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

"(a) Attendance at Annual Circuit Court

Judges Conferences 2003-2007;

(b) SCTLA Convention 2003; 04; 06; 07;

(d) Annual Criminal Law Updates at S.C.

Bar Convention 2003-2007;

(e) Annual Civil Law Updates at S.C.

Bar Convention 2003-2007."

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

"Participated in panel presentation of recent Court decisions during the 2000 Annual Conference of the S. C. Solicitor's Association - October 1-4, 2000. He also taught a course at the Florence-Darlington Technical College from August through December, 2006. This was a general law course in the Paralegal Program introducing the students to basic elements of estate matters, property matters, family law, the Constitution, torts, etc."

Judge Milling reported that he has not published any books and/or articles other than through law review in law school.
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Milling 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 Milling reported that prior to his election to the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Milling reported the following military service:

(a) "S.C. Army National Guard: December 22, 1969, to December 21, 1976; E5; XXX-XX-XXXX: Honorable Discharge;

(b) U. S. Army Reserve: February 11, 1977, to November 24, 1983: Cpt. XXX-XX-XXXX: Honorable Discharge."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Milling was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

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

"(a) Greer & Chandler: Associate with A. Lee Chandler and Benny R. Greer in their partnership from 1973 until 1976, when Chief Justice Chandler (Ret.) was elected Circuit Court Judge for the Fourth Judicial Circuit;

(b) Greer & Milling: Partner in this firm from 1976 until 1988 when Judge Greer (Ret.) was elected Family Court Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit;

(c) Milling Law Firm, P.A.: Sole practitioner in successor firm to Greer & Milling. Involved with the general practice of law.

Chief areas of practice: Personal injury claims, construction claims, Workers' Compensation cases, real estate matters, Probate matters, utility law, issues relating to construction and application of certain legislative enactments, criminal law, corporate law, divorce and family law, and School law;

(d) Part time Assistant Solicitor for Darlington County: Served in this capacity from 1977-1980; served again beginning October 1, 1997, to February 10, 1999;

(e) Part time Assistant Public Defender: 1985 and Part time Chief Public Defender from 1986 to l988 and 1994 to 1997;

(f) Town Attorney: Served as town attorney for Town of Lamar and Town of Society Hill from 1989 until February 10, 1999;

(g) Darlington County School District: Served as attorney for the District from July, 1988, until June 30, 1996."

Judge Milling reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: Three (3) cases during that period;

(b) State: civil - three (3) to four (4) cases tried per year during that period;

criminal - handling pleas or trials during each term;

family court - two or three (3) cases per month."

Judge Milling reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 65%;

(b) Criminal: 20%;

Judge Milling reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 10%;

(b) Non-jury: 5% approximately twenty (20%) percent if domestic cases are included."

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

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

"(a) Stanley v. Darlington County School District, 879 F. Supp. 1341 (D.S.C. 1995); 915 F. Supp. 764 (D.S.C. 1995); 84 F. 3rd 707 (4th Cir. 1996). Darlington County School District operated under a 1970 School Desegregation Plan approved by the Court in Stanley v. Darlington County School District, et al., 424 F. 2d 195, 196-97 (4th Cir.), rehearing denied, 424 F. 2d 198 (per curiam) cert. denied, 398 U.S. 909, 90 S. Ct. 1690, 26 L. Ed. 2d. 67 (l970). In 1990, the United States moved to intervene. The Court in the action in which I was involved had to address whether or not previously issued Orders that found the School District in compliance were binding on the Court since they were issued without an evidentiary hearing. The Court also had to address issues of whether the School District had standing to sue the State of South Carolina, whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was a bar to the action against the State, implementation of a Magnet School as a part of the remedy Order, as well as various other issues. In the portion of the case reported in 915 F. Supp. 764 (D.S.C., 1995), the trial court had to consider a revised enrollment process substituted by the School District for the dedicated Magnet School. The State of South Carolina appealed the Order of the trial court and that appeal was principally handled by Mr. Lindseth, whom, I had associated, and who tried the case with me;

(b) Florence-Darlington Commission for Technical Education, a corporate politic, and the Florence-Darlington Technical College, v. William Reeves McCall, William S. Dewitt, Jr., Clark and McCall, Architects, Inc., Rast & Associates, Hoffman, Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc., Peerless Pump Company, and The Masters Company, Inc., 1988 CP16-514. This was an action originally filed against the architects, engineers and suppliers, alleging negligence by the Defendants in the design, construction, manufacture and installation with respect to renovations to the HVAC system of the Plaintiff. The other issues that were dealt with were breach of express and implied warranties and fraud and fraudulent representations. The contract the Plaintiffs had with the Defendant architects provided for arbitration and, accordingly, the case was submitted to arbitration;

(c) Donald E. Logan v. General Motors, Inc. and King Cadillac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., 90CP21-680 and Nettie C. Logan v. General Motors, Inc. and King Cadillac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., 90CP21-1266. These were actions brought on behalf of Mr. Logan for injuries alleged to have occurred because of defects in his truck manufactured and sold by the Defendant. This was a one week products liability trial incorporating all of the issues incident to those types of cases to include the liability and damages questions and the experts on both issues;

(d) State v. Donnie Crowley, 95GS16-2026. 95GS16-2027. The State charged the Defendant with criminal sexual conduct with a minor, first degree, and criminal sexual conduct with a minor, second degree. The alleged victim was the daughter of the Defendant, and, in essence, alleged sexual assaults had been going on since she was approximately three (3) years old. She was approximately seventeen (17) years old at the time she made the allegations and had not been living with the Defendant for some period of time. The Court had to deal with various evidentiary matters, including the scope of the admissibility of statements by the alleged victim to others. In this case, I represented the Defendant as Public Defender;

(e) State v. James Jackson, 96GS13-1156. This was a murder charge where the death penalty was not sought by the State. The Defendant was a police officer who shot and killed the victim. While the Court had to deal with the general voir dire and evidentiary matters, a key issue was whether or not the Defendant had acted in self-defense in firing at the victim. The matter ended in a mistrial and was retried in January, 1999, and the Defendant, the Police Officer, was found not guilty. In this case, I was the prosecutor in both trials."

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

"(a) Bob A. Shirley v. Katherine Sydney Mims Shirley, Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court; filed August 7, 1990, Opinion No. 90-MO-224;

(b) Ready Mix Concrete Company v. Industrial Paving, Inc., Heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals; Filed December 23, 1992, Opinion No. 92UP179;

(c) Carolina Power & Light Company v. Darlington County, Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Decided May 6, 1991, 304 S.C. 525, 405 SE 2d 823 (1991);

(d) Carolina Power & Light Company v. Darlington County, Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court; Decided June 1, 1993, 315 SC 5, 431 SE2d 580 (1993);

(e) C. R. Crib and Vacie S. Cribb v. Alexander Paul and Darlington County, Heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals; filed May 14, 1996; Opinion No. 96-UP-144, by Order dated June 21, 1996. The South Carolina Court of Appeals denied the Petition for Rehearing and by Order dated November 8, 1996, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. By order dated April 28, 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Mr. Paul's petition for Writ of Certiorari."

Judge Milling reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Milling reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"(a) Elected Judge, Circuit Court, At large, Seat 1, on February 10, 1999;

(b) Re-elected Judge, Circuit Court, At large, Seat 1, on April 9, 2003. The Circuit Court is the court of general jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. The Circuit Court also has limited appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Probate Court, Magistrate's Court, and Municipal Court, as well as appeals from the Administrative Law Court and Workers' Compensation Commission for matters occurring before July, 2007."

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

"(a) Kim Austin v. John M. Trask, Jr., John M. Trask, III, and Greenway Corporation, d/b/a Carolina Buggy Tours, 1997-CP-07-187; Erik J. Cooper v. John M. Trask, Jr., John M. Trask, III, and Greenway corporation, d/b/a Carolina Buggy Tours, 1997-CP-07-208 and Pamela J. Garcia v. John M. Trask, Jr., John M. Trask, III, and Greenway corporation, d/b/a Carolina Buggy Tours, 1997-CP-07-209;

(b) Elayne Thomas Ann Scott (Brunson) v. John Q. Brunson, Sr., Trustee trust for Robert Ashley Brunson, u/w of Muldrow McCoy Brunson, 1999-CP-43-756;

(d) State v. Roywickus Cade, 1999-GS16-473;

(e) The State v. Jacinto Antonio Bull, 1998 GS16-1492 (Felony DUI), 1998 GS16-1349 (Reckless Homicide), 1998 GS16-1182 (DUS), 1999 GS16-2289 (ABHAN), and 1999 GS16-2290 (ABHAN)."

Judge Milling reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge:

"I taught a course at the Florence-Darlington Technical College from August through December, 2006. This was a general law course in the Paralegal Program introducing the students to basic elements of estate matters, property matters, family law, the Constitution, torts, etc."

Judge Milling further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I unsuccessfully ran for Darlington County Council in 1980."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Milling to be very qualified for the office he is seeking. They noted that Judge Milling "was interviewed and gave the committee a very comfortable feeling about his experience as an attorney and Judge."

Judge Milling is married to Gail Stokes Milling. He has three children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) Darlington County Bar Association;

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

"(a) Downtown Darlington Revitalization;

(b) Elder, Darlington Presbyterian Church."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Judge Milling's excellent judicial temperament. They noted he exhibits great humility as a Circuit Court judge. They further noted his good reputation as a jurist who has served on the Circuit Court bench for the past eight years.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Milling qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Kristi Lea Harrington
Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

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

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

Ms. Harrington was born in 1969. She is 38 years old and a resident of Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Ms. Harrington 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 2001. She is has also been licensed to practice law in Oklahoma since 1996 and is a member in good standing.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Ms. Harrington 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. Harrington reported that she made the following campaign expenditures: $97 for postage and $60 for stationery.

Ms. Harrington 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;

Ms. Harrington 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. Harrington to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

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

"(a) Prosecuting Homicide Cases 11/97;

(b) Legal Internship 11/98;

(d) Career Prosecutor 6/00;

(e) Finding Words 8/02;

(f) Solicitors Conference 9/03;

(g) When Babies Die 4/04;

(h) Trial Advocacy 8/04;

(i) Faculty Development Training

National College of District Attorneys 5/04;

(j) Cross Examination 2/05;

(k) Protecting Children Online

For Prosecutors 7/05;

(l) Trial Advocacy 6/06;

(m) Jesse's Law 6/06;

(n) Confronting the Challenge of

Sexual Exploitation 9/07;

(o) Solicitors Conference 9/07.

I have attended other classes in which I did not file for the educational credit because I had sufficient carry-over hours."

Ms. Harrington reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) 'DUI Trial Advocacy From 'A to V'. Charleston, S.C. June 24-25, 2004. Presentation on effective opening statements and persuasive closing arguments to audience of defense attorneys and magistrates;

(b) 'Finding Words Advanced Course.' Columbia, S.C. June 22, 2004. The second course in the training of forensic interviewers. I was responsible for the education and critique of the cross-examination for the attorneys and therapists;

Training sponsored by the Solicitors Office to aid law enforcement in the understanding of the new CDV laws. My presentation focused on Orders of Protection, especially the enforcement of foreign orders;

(d) 'Finding Words.' Columbia, S.C. August 4, 2004. This is a national course designed to teach forensic interviewing techniques. My presentation focused on what the prosecution looks for in a good interview and how the skills taught in this class assists in convictions. Instructed officers on evidence collection and corroborating witness preparation;

(e) Trial Advocacy I. NAC, Columbia, S.C. August 15-20, 2004. This is a structured week- long class in which the faculty member critiques and assists the new prosecutor on how to conduct a trial. There are fact patterns that take the student from opening statements to cross-examination, complete with actor- witnesses;

(f) Cross-examination. NAC, Columbia, S.C. February 22-25, 2005. Four day intensive class to teach less experienced attorneys 'approach point' theory of cross-examination;

(g) 'Protecting Our Children.' People against Rape. Charleston, SC. April 18, 2005. Forum for community awareness of child and adult sexual assault. Represented the Solicitors Office in explaining how prosecutions are conducted;

(h) National Institute on the Prosecution of Sexual Violence. NDAA-APRI. Las Vegas, NV. August 15-18, 2006. I was selected as faculty for this week long intensive course. During the week, each faculty had to prepare the lesson plan for the next day as well as review with other faculty how the students were progressing. The focus was on changing the paradigm of prosecutor's beliefs about victims;

(i) Childrens Justice Task Force Training. Columbia, S.C.. April 4, 2007. Class sponsored by the Childrens Justice Task Force. From a prosecutor's perspective, I instructed the investigator trainees on evidence collection, witness interviews, and trial preparation;

(k) I am a faculty member at the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, S.C., and I am an adjunct professor at Limestone College. I also provide case law updates and training to the law enforcement personnel in my county."

Ms. Harrington reported she has published the following:

"I have personally prepared lecture materials for the above seminars."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Harrington 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. Harrington reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Ms. Harrington was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 2001.

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

"(a) October 1996 - February 2001: Tulsa County District Attorney's Office.

I began in this office as a legal intern in 1994. I obtained my limited license to practice law and was assigned to the juvenile bureau of the office. In that assignment, I was able to try non-jury and jury trials under the supervision of a licensed attorney. My supervising attorney's docket consisted of over one thousand (1,000) cases. It was my responsibility to maintain the docket, attend detention hearings, and assist in any capacity needed. My hard work and dedication to the job garnered me a full-time position once I passed the bar. I was assigned to the juvenile bureau as an assistant district attorney with my own caseload.

I was then transferred to a misdemeanor docket which encompassed the domestic violence cases. During my tenure, I became one of three prosecutors that helped to establish the Domestic Violence Court. It was my responsibility to attend bond hearings, remain in contact with the victim, and prosecute all domestic violence cases. The team became involved with the Board of the local shelter and established a Task Force with the Tulsa Police Department.

I then was elevated to a felony trial team, which consisted of three attorneys and a team captain. Each team is assigned a circuit court judge. The rotation involved weekly preliminary hearings, three weeks of trial terms, and one non-jury week. I was assigned all the child abuse cases and many adult sexual assaults. My duties included staffing at the Children's Justice Center in which representatives from the police department, Department of Human Services, the forensic interviewer, and medical personnel were present. This gave the opportunity for all persons involved with the child victim to present all aspects of the case.

Since Oklahoma is an 'information' state, one of the most burdensome responsibilities was the approval of charges. Each day, our office would schedule time for all available attorneys to review police reports and make charging decisions. This allowed for an attorney to hone the skills required to recognize what else may be needed in the specific case and to become very familiar with all the elements required to make the specific charge.

My last assignment in the office was the deprived docket, which involves the allegations brought by the Department of Human Services (DHS). It was during this period that I became very familiar with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Since Tulsa has a very large Native American population, one must become very knowledgeable about the Act. Termination of parental rights must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt when you are dealing with a tribal child. This assignment gave me a plethora of experiences, one being the responsibility of writing my own appeals. I left the office when I returned home in February of 2001;

(b) February 2001- December 2001. Carter Durand Harrington, P.A.

When I returned home, I had to take the South Carolina Bar Examination. I immediately began preparing to do so. My father had been a practicing attorney since 1982. I assisted in his office during the study period, acting only a legal assistant. During this time, I interviewed clients in the office and at the jail, prepared files for court, and completed basic office tasks. It was in this office that I had learned that I loved the law. I worked during my high school years and during the summers in college to assist my father in his sole practice. The thrill of watching him defend an individual charged with murder solidified my resolve to go to law school.

During my high school years, I was able to work in the office assisting the paralegals and secretaries as needed. The practice consisted of domestic, criminal defense, and civil work. Every day I was exposed to a litany of clients and legal issues. I assisted on probate cases, ensuring that all of the paperwork was timely filed. Any personal injury cases were given to me to document the files and to obtain all necessary medical and insurance paperwork. This gave me a substantial overview of many aspects of the legal system;

I was hired by the late Ralph Hoisington to fill an opening in the Berkeley County office. The open caseload was primarily child sexual abuse, which I settled into quickly. The basic human dynamics are the same, regardless of jurisdiction. I became immersed in the docket and the surrounding community, wanting to expand my knowledge in all areas. I became involved with the Finding Words seminar, encouraging all my police departments to send an investigator. My cases now include all violent crimes, ranging from sexual assaults to murder. I was recently appointed to be the Special Victims Prosecutor for Berkeley County, which includes all child victims and elder abuse. I am currently one of two prosecutors statewide to be on the Children's Justice Task Force. I was selected to attend the Faculty Training at the National Advocacy Center based upon my performance at the Career Prosecutors Course. After the in-depth training at the NAC, I am a faculty member, teaching prosecuting attorneys nationwide.

I am the primary prosecutor for all methamphetamine lab cases in the county. Tulsa was experiencing the same dirge from the drug when I was there, so I had already received specialized training concerning 'meth'.

I have taken a special interest in the prosecution of internet crimes involving children. As a graduate of the NCMEC course, I am a contact for the Attorney General's Office in the prosecution of these cases. I have prosecuted several cases involving the use of the computer, either to entice a child to participate in sexual activity or to facilitate the trade of child pornography. It is most important to stay informed on the emergence of new technology.

I am a team leader, supervising two other attorneys. I am frequently the attorney in charge of court for the term, ensuring that court runs smoothly for the week."

Ms. Harrington further reported:

"The past five years have been full of criminal trial experience. I am employed as Assistant Solicitor in the Ninth Judicial Circuit. I have tried several jury trials, ranging from murder to possession of cocaine. I have a strong background in criminal matters, having begun prosecuting prior to obtaining my law degree. I obtained my limited license to practice law as a legal intern in 1994. The types of cases I have handled range from petit larceny to homicide. My caseload currently consists of approximately two hundred and fifty (250) warrants. I prosecute violent crimes, primarily child sexual assault cases. The cases dealing with children present an entirely different set of legal issues, as well as emotional and developmental problems. I have specialized in training in the forensic interviewing of children which assists in the prosecution of these cases. I am trained by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children to prosecute online sexual exploitation of children. My reputation as a knowledgeable prosecutor is evidenced by my selection to the Children's Justice Task Force. I am one of two prosecutors statewide to be on the Task Force. I am asked to lecture at a variety of seminars, including national conferences.

My exposure to a different Circuit Court judge each court term has allowed me to hone my legal skills. Each judge has given me some insight into the judiciary, and I have noted the positives of each jurist, taking into account what I would like to incorporate into my own judicial style.

It would be almost impossible to delineate all of the cases that I have handled over the past five years. The most significant to me are the criminal sexual conduct with minor charges as these cases require the most intense involvement with the victim, the family, and the case itself. I have prosecuted well over one hundred (100) sexual assault cases, with only one not guilty in a jury trial.

My criminal law background does not merely include prosecution. As a child of a criminal defense attorney, I grew up surrounded by the law, especially criminal law. I worked in the law office beginning at age 12, assisting by filing or making copies. As I matured, I was allowed to assist on a greater level. I have been in the jail to interview clients and in the courtroom representing defendants for a plea.

I believe that a good prosecutor must have some 'defense attorney' blood in them in order to understand the case from both perspectives. I have been fortunate to be immersed in both sides of the criminal law world. I understand the defense attorney's statements about difficult clients while managing a law office.

As my application reflects, I have been employed with the Solicitors Office for the past five years. As such, I am unable to practice in the civil arena. To maintain a level of competency in civil law, I have taught for the past five years at Limestone College. I teach Business Law I, II, and III as an adjunct professor. To remain an effective and engaging teacher, it is imperative to remain current on the law. My students must be able to analyze issues and apply the appropriate law. Business Law is an introduction to the law, which serves as the foundation for the other classes. I instruct on the Constitution, jurisdiction, the Court System, and the difference between civil and criminal law. I spend substantial time on negligence and torts. Each class is designed to build upon itself in an understanding of how the legal system impacts every aspect of the business community. Business Law II discusses landlord and tenant relationships and obligations, wills and trusts, and employee rights. The Business Law III class is Legal Issues in Technology, which requires substantial effort to remain ahead of the technology trend legally.

My prior experience as a legal assistant in the office of Carter Harrington, P.A. gave me a very basic understanding of personal injury cases. I was responsible for the creation of the file and the collection of documents. I assisted in preparing the attorney for the taking of depositions. I became proficient at requesting discovery and responding to motions.

I also have the knowledge and experience of preparing my own appeals. Few attorneys have the opportunity to be involved with appellate work. Due to the civil nature of the docket that I assigned to in Tulsa, I learned how to research and analyze legal issues relating to both civil and criminal law. All of my appeals were affirmed.

I realize that my legal background may be considered deficient in the civil arena, but I do not feel this to be a detriment to my legal career and should not negatively impact the consideration given to my application. My strengths in the criminal law are numerous. The same dedication and desire to be the most knowledgeable I could be is easily transferred to civil law. I have always made it a priority to be prepared for every court hearing, and I certainly would be prepared to hear any civil case once seated as a Circuit Court judge."

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

"(a) Federal: none;

(b) State: I am in General Sessions approximately one week per month. During that time, I present jury trials, conduct motion hearings, and do guilty pleas. I currently have a caseload of two hundred fifty (250) warrants. Additionally, I conduct preliminary hearings one day a month."

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

"(a) Civil: 0%;

(b) Criminal: 100%;

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

"(a) Jury: 30%;

(b) Non-jury: 70%."

Ms. Harrington provided that she "most often serves as sole counsel. I do sit as chief counsel in cases where I am acting as a supervising attorney."

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

"(a) State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103, 664 S.E. 2d 684 (2007). This case involved a two and one-half year old female who had been digitally penetrated by a friend of the family. The victim was dropped off at the home of a relative. Her tights were blood stained, and she was crying in pain. The victim stated the defendant had 'hurt her', and she was rushed to the emergency room. The case presented the challenge of overcoming the 'time/place' only rules. I had to establish a very clear timeline that proved the defendant was the only person who was with the victim during the time immediately preceding the victim being dropped off. The victim's statement to the aunt was made under an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, but the defense was adamant that it did not and objected to its admission. The Court allowed the statement that 'Brian hurt my tootie' to explain how the victim received the injury as an excited utterance exception. The next challenge was whether Crawford might apply, but clearly the statement was non-testimonial and not made to law enforcement. The Defendant was found guilty of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor, First Degree, and was sentenced to fourteen (14) years. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, which was reported on April 23, 2007;

(b) State v. Ayre, The Defendant was charged with six (6) counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor, First Degree, and six (6) counts of Solicitation of Minor, Second Degree. This case was significant to me because of the length of my involvement with the facts and the family of the victims. The case came to my attention because I had just completed the Sexual Exploitation training at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. SLED had been notified by the Michigan State Police that the Defendant was in possession of child pornography, believed to be his own children. The defendant had to be extradited from Michigan. Due to the delay in the case, there were concerns about the children's ability to remember the details and the effects on the children should they testify. The mother of the victims was able to identify the background of the photographs so the jurisdiction and age of the children was established. The Defendant plead and received an active sentence of fifteen (15) years concurrent to the sentence he has to serve in Michigan. I felt a sense of satisfaction as the sentence was equal to the crime and the young children did not have to testify;

(c) State v. Marquez, The defendant was detained by a police officer when the defendant was observed to be speaking with a known prostitute in the area. The officer observed several photographs of a young girl on the floorboard of the vehicle and became suspicious. The defendant was arrested. The major hurdle in this case was what to charge the defendant. The photographs were clearly obscene in nature, but only one of the eleven photographs showed any genitalia and none rose to the level of 'sexual activity' under the statutory definition. The photographs grouped as a whole were disturbing as my training and experience indicated that the defendant was 'grooming' this child to continue more explicit photographing at the very least. The victim was terrified of the defendant and was prepared to testify against the defendant. The defendant plead prior to jury selection to a Contributing to the Delinquency of Minor indictment. During the sentencing colloquy, I explained to the Court the progressive sexual nature of the photographs and requested that the defendant be placed on the Sexual Offender Registry, which was within the Court's discretion. The Court granted my request and sentenced the defendant to be placed upon the Registry. This case is significant to me as I felt that the defendant was a risk of harm to the community and was escalating in his behavior with the victim. Persistence and knowledge of the grooming techniques employed by sexual predators was essential in the preparation and presentation of this case;

(d) In the Matter of A.M., (Oklahoma). This case is significant to me for many reasons. This was my first jury trial as a licensed attorney. I was assigned to the juvenile division of the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office. The juvenile respondent was charged with Burglary, First Degree, and Rape, First Degree. The victim was a fifty (50) year old woman that was working late the day before Mother's Day in her floral shop. The respondent broke into the business and raped the victim. The case traumatized the victim, and I learned much about being sympathetic to a victim's needs. I had been accustomed to working with younger victims of sexual assault, and I erroneously thought an older victim would be better able to handle such trauma. The proceedings were closed due to the confidentiality of the respondent. At the time of the case, only certified victim-witness personnel with the District Attorneys Office could be present as support. My victim wanted to have her Rape Crisis Counselor present, and the judge refused to allow the request, citing statutory authority. After the adjudication of the delinquent, I assisted the victim in enacting legislation that allowed the victim to choose who would be present in the courtroom as his or her own support person. That victim impacted others with her tenacity and refusal to let adversity stand in her way. I often think of this victim when I am preparing a sexual assault victim to take the witness stand keeping me attentive to special needs of persons in the courtroom;

(e) In the Matter of L.B., S.L.P, T.P, & N.D.P, (Oklahoma). N.D.P. was a six month old baby who presented to the emergency room on the verge of death weighing less than five (5) pounds. Records indicate that N.D.P. had been almost ten (10) pounds at birth with no postnatal trauma or illness. Investigation revealed that the natural mother of the infant had ignored the signs of N.D.P.'s slow dehydration and malnourishment due to her new interest in activities outside of the home. The natural father had been left to care for the infant and his three sisters. The father confessed to starving the infant intentionally, hoping that the natural mother would become concerned enough about the child's heath to stay home to care for him. The eldest daughter attempted to feed the infant, but there was not enough sustenance in the home. The Department of Human Services (DHS) intervened when the case was filed. I assisted in the criminal prosecution of both the parents which resulted in incarceration for both. The most satisfaction came from terminating the parental rights of both parents. A family was able to adopt all four children. At the time of the final hearing, N.D.P. was a thriving child, placing within his appropriate percentile on the growth charts."

The following is Ms. Harrington's account of four civil and criminal appeals she has personally handled:

"I have listed the following appeals that I personally handled. Each is considered a hybrid case, as the law in Oklahoma defines the deprived docket as a quasi-criminal/quasi-civil matter. The cases are placed on a 'fast-track' docket to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. The briefs were ordered from the Supreme Court and will be forwarded the Commission once they are received.

(a) In the Matter of B.L., The Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Filed February 16, 2000. Affirmed August 11, 2000;

(b) In the Matter of X.W., The Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Filed March 17, 2000. Affirmed November 27, 2000;

(c) In the Matter of L.B., S.L.P., T.P., and N.D.P., The Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Filed July 10, 2000. Affirmed December 8, 2000;

(d) In the Matter of S.R., J.C.T., M.M.A., and J.A., The Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Filed August 11, 2000. Affirmed September 4, 2001."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Kristi Lea Harrington to be "an eminently qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."

Ms. Harrington is not married. She has one child.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

House of Delegates;

Chair-Cinderella Project 2003-04;

(b) Oklahoma Bar Association;

(d) Berkeley County Bar Association;

(e) Inns of Court-W. Lee Johnson Chapter, 1997-98;

(f) Solicitor's Association of South Carolina;

(g) Children's Justice Task Force, 2006-present;

One of two Solicitors selected statewide to be on the task force."

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

"(a) Trident Literacy Association, Literacy Tutor;

(b) Otranto Neighborhood Association;

President;

Parliamentarian;

(d) District 19 PTA;

Vice-President;

(e) Berkeley County Mental Health Commission;

District 1 Board Member;

(f) Berkeley Chamber of Commerce;

(g) Order of the Eastern Star;

(h) My Sister's House Volunteer;

(i) Darkness to Light Volunteer;

(j) Alpha Delta Pi Alumnae Association;

(k) Roscoe Reading Program."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Ms. Harrington's dedication to public service as reflected in her service to Legal Aid during law school and her career as a prosecutor. They noted her stated goal as a prosecutor was to see that justice is done, not to simply convict the defendant. They further noted that they were impressed with her desire for self improvement exhibited by teaching business law at the collegiate level, an area in which she does not practice.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Ms. Harrington qualified and nominated her for election to the Circuit Court.

Jack A. Landis
Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

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

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

Judge Landis was born in 1955. He is 52 years old and a resident of Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Judge Landis 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 Landis.

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

Judge Landis 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;

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

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

"(a) SC Bar Convention, Family Law Section 1/25/02;

(b) Family Court Judicial Conference 5/1/02;

(d) Annual Joint Judicial Conference 8/02;

(e) Bench/ Bar Family Law Seminar 12/02;

(f) SC Bar Convention, Family Law Section 1/03;

(g) Family Court Judicial Conference 5/03;

(h) SCTLA Annual Convention 8/03;

(i) Annual Joint Judicial Conference 8/03;

(j) Bench/ Bar Family Law Seminar 12/03;

(k) SC Bar Convention, Family Law Section 1/04;

(l) NCJFCJ Conference on Juveniles 3/04;

(m) Family Court Judicial Conference 5/04;

(n) SCTLA Annual Convention 8/04;

(o) Annual Joint Judicial Conference 8/04;

(p) Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar 12/04;

(q) SC Bar Convention, Family Law Section 1/05;

(r) Family Court Judicial Conference 5/05;

(s) NCFCJ Annual Conference 7/05;

(t) SCTLA Annual Convention 8/05;

(u) Annual Joint Judicial Conference 8/05;

(v) National Judicial College 9/05;

(w) Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar 12/05;

(x) SC Bar Convention, Family Law Section 1/06;

(y) National Judicial College 5/06;

(z) SCTLA Annual Convention 8/06;

(aa) Annual Joint Judicial Conference 8/06;

(bb) Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar 12/06;

(cc) SC Bar Convention, Family Law Section 1/07;

(dd) Family Court Judicial Conference 5/07;

(ee) NCJFCJ Annual Conference 7/07;

(ff) SCTLA Annual Convention 8/07;

(gg) Annual Joint Judicial Conference 8/07."

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

"(a) May 14, 1997, One Day Seminar - 'Paralegals in Family Law';

(b) Oct. 26, 2000, Charleston County Bar Association Family Law Seminar - 'What a Judge Wants, What a Judge Needs';

(d) May 1, 2003, Annual Family Court Judges Conference 'Computer Forms and Templates for Judges.'"

Judge Landis reported that he has published the following:

"(a) Seminar materials to accompany the program presented to paralegals in May, 1997, and described above;

(b) Outlines for various chapters of the Bench Book created for the Family Court Bench. This is an ongoing project but my portions were written during the period 2005 - 2006."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Landis 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 Landis reported that prior to his election to the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Landis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.

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

"(a) 1980 - 1984, Assistant Public Defender, Berkeley County, SC (part-time). I represented indigent defendants in General Sessions and Family Court;

(b) 1980 - 1984, Sole Practitioner, 311 E. Main St., Moncks Corner, SC General practice of law including domestic and civil litigation, real estate transactions, and criminal defense litigation;

(d) Partner - Dennis, Dennis & Landis, 337 E. Main St., Moncks Corner, SC. General practice of law including domestic and civil litigation, real estate transactions, and criminal defense;

(e) Partner - Landis & Louden, 295 N. Highway 52, Moncks Corner, SC. General practice of law including domestic and civil litigation, real estate transactions, and criminal defense;

(f) Municipal Judge for the Town of Moncks Corner (part-time), P.O. Box 276, Carolina Ave., Moncks Corner, SC;

(g) 1998 - Present, Judge, Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit Seat 6, P.O. Box 1707, 300 B California Ave., Moncks Corner, SC."

Judge Landis further reported:

"Obviously, since I have been on the Family Court Bench for almost ten years, I have not handled any criminal or civil matters as an attorney in well over five years. However, as a Family judge, I have presided over many juvenile trials which involve many of the same criminal procedural rules as well as the same evidentiary rules as General Sessions Court. Also, prior to the Family Court, I was a municipal judge for over eleven years and presided over numerous jury trials.

Likewise, on the civil side, the trials over which I preside in Family Court involve the same rules of procedure and evidence as well as all other elements of trials in Common Pleas Court other than juries and certain procedural matters.

Prior to joining the Family Bench, my experience as an attorney was diverse and involved most of the types of cases handled by the Circuit Court. I began my career as a part-time public defender and represented hundreds of defendants in both guilty pleas and in jury trials including at least three defendants who were tried for murder. After leaving the public defender office I continued to handle criminal matters as a defense attorney in both General Sessions and Magistrates Courts. On the civil side, the majority of my practice before the Circuit Court was as a Plaintiff's attorney in personal injury, contract and real estate litigation. My practice as a litigator in Family Court also provided experience in substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law that carries over to matters before the Circuit Court.

For fourteen years I have coached a high school mock trial team that has provided unparalleled practice in the preparation for and presentation of matters in jury trials. Teaching practice and procedure is itself the best teacher for trial litigation."

Judge Landis reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: Approx. 2 times per year;

(b) State: Five times per week."

Judge Landis reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: Overall - 20%, five years prior to becoming Judge -10%;

(b) Criminal: Overall - 10%, five years prior to becoming Judge - 5%;

Judge Landis reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: Overall - 20%, last five years of practice, 5%;

(b) Non-jury: Overall - 80%, last five years of practice, 95%."

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

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

"(a) Wayne Dalton Corporation v. Acme Doors, et al., 394 SE2d 5, 302 S.C. 93 (S.C. Ct. App 1990). This matter was a suit by Wayne Dalton, a manufacturer and distributor of overhead and garage doors. Plaintiff provided doors to Acme Doors for resale and installation. The original owner of Acme personally guaranteed the account. The business was sold without the original owner receiving any formal release of the personal guarantees.

The Master in Equity ruled that the original owner was no longer liable on the personal guarantee. The ruling was appealed to the Circuit Court which overturned the Master and found original owner liable on the guarantees. This decision was reversed by the SC Court Appeals finding that the actions of all of the parties subsequent to the sale constituted a novation of the personal guarantee;

(b) State of South Carolina v. Robert Sibilia, Defendant was charged with kidnapping and murder. Facts revealed that Defendant was obsessed with a former girlfriend and believed that she was seeing another man. He stalked the girlfriend and hid outside her home. She arrived with her cousin, at which time Defendant killed the cousin by firing a shotgun at close range through the window of the vehicle. He then kidnapped the former girlfriend and held her against her will. At a gas station a bystander realized that something was amiss and rescued the woman.

This case had a very interesting fact situation, challenging evidentiary questions, alleged "jailhouse confessions", and substantial expert and forensic testimony. The Defendant was a difficult individual who was mercurial in his moods and attitude who incurred additional criminal charges due to acts while incarcerated and awaiting trial;

(c) Purdie v. Smalls, 359 SE2d 306, 293 S.C. 216 (S.C. Ct. App 1987). This case was important as it was one of the earliest cases that helped clarify and define the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. The Plaintiff Father obtained a Temporary Order from the State of New York which granted him custody of the minor child of Plaintiff and Defendant. At the time, New York had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendant Mother removed the child to South Carolina and hid. When Father finally located Mother and child he filed an action in the Family Court in SC. The Family Court granted full faith and credit to the NY Order and returned custody to Plaintiff. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted a Writ of Supersedeas and the Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the Family Court decision.

This case has been frequently cited in subsequent litigation as well as in legal journals and reviews;

(d) Oakley v. Oakley, 92-DR-08-1546. This was a very interesting as well as challenging case because both parties were totally deaf as was an alleged paramour and the majority of the witnesses. This matter involved a marriage of twelve years during which three children were born and substantial assets were accumulated. Discovery was difficult due to the disabilities of the parties and witnesses. Ultimately, the maternal grandmother was joined as a party, joint custody was granted with the grandmother being the primary custodian and the parents being deemed secondary custodians;

(e) Betty C. Francis v. Edward Francis, Sr., This was a domestic matter that involved all possible issues arising from a marriage including divorce, custody, support, visitation, alimony, and equitable division. The Defendant husband was represented by several different attorneys during the course of litigation and ultimately Defendant chose to represent himself. This was difficult litigation that involved a defendant who refused to recognize the validity of Court Orders resulting in numerous hearings and findings of contempt. This matter was significant for me as it was my first opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court of South Carolina. My client was successful in her fight for custody, support, alimony, and her share of assets acquired during a lengthy and tumultuous marriage."

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

"(a) Purdie v. Smalls, 207 SE2d 306, 293 SC 216, S.C. App. 8/10/1987;

(b) Wayne Dalton Corporation v. Acme Doors, et al., 394 SE2d 5, 302 S.C. 93, SC App. 5/29/1990;

(d) Dawson v. Dawson, S.C. Court of Appeals, decided 3/8/1993, Not Reported;

(e) Wilkerson v. Staton, S.C. Court of Appeals, decided 2/14/1995, Not Reported."

Judge Landis reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Landis reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"(a) Municipal Judge, Town of Moncks Corner - May, 1987 - May, 1998. This was an appointed position with jurisdiction of misdemeanors on the magistrate level, town ordinances, traffic offenses, execution of search and arrest warrants, bond hearings, and preliminary hearings;

(b) Family Court Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 6. Elected May, 1998 - present. Jurisdiction as set forth in Title 20, South Carolina Code of Laws, including but not limited to custody, divorce, adoption, termination of parental rights, child support, alimony, abuse and neglect, annulments, name changes, equitable apportionment, validity of marriages, paternity, and delinquency;

(c) Chief Administrative Judge (appointed) for either Berkeley or Charleston County for approximately six of nine years on bench."

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

"(a) Widman v. Widman, 557 SE 2d 693, 348 S.C. 97, (Ct App. 2001). This matter involved a number if issues including the determination of child support when the income of the parties exceeded Guideline amounts, equitable division of a marital estate with a value in excess of six million dollars, co-mingling of funds, valuation of limited partnership stock, family trusts and allegations of contempt;

(b) Middleton v. Johnson, 633 SE2d 162, 369 S.C. 585, (Ct App. 2006). Plaintiff was an individual unrelated by either blood or marriage to the subject minor child. He was seeking visitation privileges against the wishes of a fit biological Mother, claiming that he was a "psychological parent". I ruled that the law did not provide for an unrelated third party to seek visitation against the wishes of a fit parent.

The S.C. Court of Appeals overruled and established the criteria by which an unrelated third party could establish his or her status as a psychological parent and seek rights previously denied under the law;

(c) Pendergast v. Pendergast, 579 SE2d 530, 354 S.C. 32, (Ct App. 2003). This was an action by Plaintiff Father for modification of unallocated child support alimony as a result of the graduation of the parties' child from college. I granted a modification of child support based upon changed circumstances but denied a modification of alimony and awarded attorney fees and costs to Defendant Mother. The S.C. Court of Appeals affirmed;

(d) Wall v. Wall, S.C. Ct. App., Unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP-405. Child custody, visitation, legal fees, alimony, child support, and valuation of assets were the issues presented in Wall. Husband was seeking alimony and a downward deviation from the Guidelines alleging diminished earning capacity. Husband was seeking an interest in Wife's veterinary clinic and Wife was claiming an interest in proceeds from Husband's personal injury settlement. My Order was affirmed on eleven of the twelve appealed issues;

(e) Charleston County Department of Social Services v. Cutler, Pollard, and Sumpter, Docket # 00-DR-10-4108, 2001. DSS filed for the termination of the parental rights of the Defendants who had had their children removed as a result of neglect or abuse. The Defendants were accused of extreme malnourishment of the children resulting in hospitalization for at least two. Defendants entered a treatment plan with the stated goal being reunification. The Defendants completed all of the requirements of the treatment plan.

Due to the unconventional lifestyle and the religious beliefs of the Defendants, the GAL and DSS caseworker opposed reunification regardless of Defendant's compliance with the approved treatment plan.

After two and a half weeks of testimony it became clear that the GAL and DSS had decided to seek TPR even before the Defendants had had an opportunity to complete the plan. Additionally, obstacles were placed in an attempt to thwart successful completion."

Judge Landis reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge:

"Other than serving as judge, I have had no employment since being elected to the Family Court Bench in May of 1998. While serving as appointed Municipal Judge for the Town of Moncks Corner from 1987 until 1998, I also maintained a private law practice. I was self-employed in the general practice of law that included domestic, civil, and criminal litigation and real estate. As Municipal Judge the Mayor was my supervisor, the Town of Moncks Corner my employer."

Judge Landis further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In February, 1996, I ran unsuccessfully for Seat #5, Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. I was found qualified by the Joint Legislative Screening Committee as well as the S.C. Bar Screening Committee."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Landis to be "an eminently qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."

Judge Landis is married to Sharon Bennett Landis. He has two children.

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

"(a) The South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(b) The South Carolina Bar Association;

(d) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."

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

"(a) First Presbyterian Church of Moncks Corner, S.C. Elder-inactive;

(b) Moncks Corner YMCA;

(d) 2003 S.C. Bar Law Related Education Lawyer of the Year;

(e) 1994 S.C. Bar Pro Bono Service Award."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Judge Landis's great temperament which would assist him on the Circuit Court. They noted that he is considered by many to be an excellent judge on the Family Court bench where he has ably served for the past nine years. They further noted that Judge Landis performed well on the Commission's Practice and Procedure exam.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Landis qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

William J. Thrower
Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

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

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

Mr. Thrower was born in 1962. He is 45 years old and a resident of Hollywood, South Carolina. Mr. Thrower 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 1991.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Mr. Thrower 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. Thrower reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Thrower 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;

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

Mr. Thrower described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"Conference/CLE Name Date(s)

(a) Practical Legal Ethics 12/11/02;

(b) 20/20 View of 2002 12/20/02;

(d) Chas Bar CLE 12/05/03;

(e) Chas Bar CLE 12/12/03;

(f) Criminal Practice Seminar 11/17/04;

(g) Oath and Ethics Seminar 12/21/04;

(h) Criminal Practice Seminar 11/18/05;

(i) What Works For Me 12/09/05;

(j) What Works For You 12/16/05;

(k) What Works For Me 12/01/06;

(l) What Works For You 12/15/06;

(m) Evidence Law Update 12/27/06."

Mr. Thrower reported that he has taught the following law-related course:

"I have appeared as a panel member at the Public Defender Conference due to my law enforcement background and extensive trial experience."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Thrower 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. Thrower reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Thrower was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.

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

"I was hired by the Charleston County Public Defender's Office in 1991. I handled a variety of cases in General Sessions Court until 1993. I was hired by the Dallis Law Firm in 1993 to handle real estate matters along with civil and criminal litigation. I became a solo practitioner in 1995 and focused on civil and criminal litigation. In 2005, I joined the Harrell Law Firm and I handle all civil and criminal litigation for the firm."

Mr. Thrower further reported:

"Over the past five years, I have handled over 250 criminal matters. I have defended individuals for a variety of charges including several murder cases. I am appointed Special Prosecutor for the City of North Charleston whenever there is a conflict with the city prosecutor. In civil court, I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury and contract matters. I have handled several civil rights violations in both State and Federal Court. I have tried over 100 cases combined in Magistrate's Court, Municipal Court, State and Federal Court. I have spent the majority of my practice in litigation."

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

"(a) Federal: I appear approximately ten times a year in Federal Court;

(b) State: I appear almost every week in Circuit Court."

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

"(a) Civil: 45%;

(b) Criminal: 50%;

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

"(a) Jury: 20%;

(b) Non-jury: 80%."

Mr. Thrower provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

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

"(a) Kenneth McCullough v. Dollar General and The Lake City Police Department, This was a civil rights violation case wherein Mr. McCullough was wrongly accused of theft from a Dollar General store in Lake City. This case was significant because we were able to prove through extensive discovery, that the District Manager for Dollar General directed the investigation and encouraged the arrest of Mr. McCullough. The case was settled very favorably for the plaintiff;

(b) United States of America v. Victoria Yaitsky, I defended Ms. Yaitsky for murder for hire charge in Federal Court. The case was interesting due to the cultural and language differences. The trial of the case lasted a week and most of the witnesses testified through translators. There were several significant issues dealing with taped conversations translated for the trial and expert witnesses challenging the validity of the tapes themselves. I learned a great deal from Judge Duffy and was impressed with his rulings on some very difficult issues;

(c) City of North Charleston v. Sonny Bell, This is a case where I was appointed a Special Prosecutor for the City of North Charleston. Mr. Bell was accused of vandalizing two vehicles owned by a city councilman. There was a videotape of one of the incidents that was released to the media prior to my appointment. I felt it was important to resolve the matter without undue publicity and I did that. I was able to secure full restitution for the victim and keep the matter from receiving excess publicity. I feel I handled a volatile situation in a dignified manner;

(d) Gaskins v. The Department of Transportation, I represented the Department of Transportation for an automobile accident where one of their employees rear ended an individual driving a pickup truck. The plaintiff claimed debilitating back injuries. This case was significant because I was able to show the plaintiff had serious preexisting injuries that more likely than not contributed to his present condition. While conceding fault for the accident, I was able to convince the jury to find for the Department of Transportation;

(e) State of South Carolina v. Dennis Hiott, I represented Mr. Hiott for the charge of criminal sexual conduct with a Minor. The trial lasted five days and resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury (6-6). The charge was later dismissed. The case was significant because I conducted an exhaustive investigation and found impeachment evidence on a key prosecution witness. I was able to show a deep bias by the medical examiner against not only the individuals accused of this crime, but also their attorneys. Once her severe bias was exposed, her opinion was refutable."

Mr. Thrower reported he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Thrower to be "an eminently qualified and highly regarded candidate who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."

Mr. Thrower is married to Cynthia Pettersen Thrower. He has two children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) Charleston County Bar Association;

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

Mr. Thrower further reported: "I have a very diverse background that you do not normally see in a judicial candidate. I have a strong work ethic and a deep respect for the integrity of the judicial system. I would bring these qualities to the bench if elected."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Thrower has an impressively diverse legal background, which would assist him well on the Circuit Court. They noted at the Public Hearing he demonstrated his sense of compassion and explained how he thoroughly investigates a legal matter. They further noted that Mr. Thrower would be a positive addition to the Circuit Court bench.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Thrower qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Alison Renee Lee
Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 11

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

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

Judge Lee was born in 1958. She is 49 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Lee 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. She has also been licensed to practice law in Texas since 1982 and Louisiana since 1983. She is currently on inactive status in these two states and was a member in good standing at that time.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

A complaint was filed before the Commission in opposition to Judge Lee's candidacy. The complainant, Adrian Hammond, contended that Judge Lee initially presided over his pro se 2006 civil action filed in Richland County, who refused to hear his motions to reconsider and she failed, as the Chief Administrative Judge, to request the recusal of the other Judge who subsequently heard the Motions in this civil action.

Judge Lee thoroughly responded to the issues alleged in the complaint. The Commission noted that Judge Lee understood and appreciated the concerns of the pro so litigant and she commented that in the future she will err on the side of over-communication. The Commission concluded that Judge Lee did not engage in any improper conduct under the Canons of Judicial Conduct and commented that she was very gracious in how she responded to the complaint and the pro se litigant's several contacts to her by letter.

Judge Lee 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 Lee reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Lee 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;

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

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

"(a) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/21/03;

(b) Criminal Law Update 01/21/03;

(d) Class Actions 10/21/03;

(e) Women Lawyers in the New Millennium 04/11/03;

(f) S.C. Circuit Judges Conference 05/07/03;

(g) S.C. Judicial Conference 08/21/03;

(h) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/23/04;

(i) Annual Civil Law Update 01/23/04;

(j) Matthew J. Perry: The Man 04/23/04;

(k) S.C. Circuit Judges Conference 05/05/04;

(l) S.C. Judicial Conference 08/19/04;

(m) Annual Civil Law Update 01/21/05;

(n) Annual Criminal law Update 01/21/05;

(o) Circuit Judges Conference 05/11/05;

(p) Annual Judicial Conference 08/24/05;

(q) ABC's of Effective & Ethical Trial Practice 10/14/05;

(r) Annual Civil Law Update 01/28/06;

(s) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/28/06;

(t) Circuit Judges' Conference 05/10/06;

(u) Annual Judicial Conference 08/23/06;

(v) Annual Civil Law Update 01/21/07;

(w) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/21/07;

(x) Circuit Judges' Conference 05/14/07."

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

"(a) JCLE - Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (August 1985)

Topic: Settling the Family Court Record on Appeal;

(b) Basic Federal Court Practice (September 1985)

Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local Rules;

(d) Bridge the Gap (May 1996, March 1997, May 1997, March 1998, May 1998)

Topic: Practice Tips for the Administrative Law Judge Division;

(e) 1996 That Was the Year That Was (January 1997)

Topic: 1996 Update for the Administrative Law Judge Division;
(f) Rules, Rules, Rules: S.C. Practice & Procedure Update (March 1998)

Topic: Rules of the Administrative Law Judge Division;

(g) South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving into the Millennium (May 1998);

(h) Tips from the Bench III (December 2002);

(i) Women Lawyers in the New Millennium (April 2003)

Topic: Ethics - Circuit Court;

(j) S.C. Black Lawyers Summit & Retreat (October 2004)

Topic: S.C. Judiciary on Civility & Ethics (panel discussion);

(k) ABC's of Effective and Ethical Practice (October 2005)

Topic: Enhancing Persuasion in Trial: Civil and Criminal Advocacy in S.C. (panel discussion);

(l) South Carolina Black Lawyers Summit & Retreat (September 2006)

Topic: Tips from the Bench (Panel discussion);

(m) South Carolina Municipal Association (December 2006)

Topic: Ethics - Circuit Court."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Lee 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 Lee reported that prior to her election to the bench she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Lee was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

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

"(a) 1982-83: Law Clerk, Honorable Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals;

(b) 1983-84: Law Clerk, Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., South Carolina Court of Appeals;

(d) 1989-94: Staff Counsel, S.C. Legislative Council, drafting legislation and amendments for members of the General Assembly in the areas of transportation, crime, corrections and prisons, and education;

(e) 1994-1999: Administrative Law Judge presiding over administrative hearing relating to insurance, environmental permitting, alcoholic beverages, wages, taxes, video poker, bingo, appeals from occupational licensing boards, and hearings on regulations promulgated by certain state agencies;

(f) 1999-present: Circuit Court Judge. Court of general jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters. Appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate, and probate cases."

Judge Lee reported that she has held the following judicial office(s):

"(a) Elected by the General Assembly in February 1994 to the office of Administrative Law Judge which is a quasi-judicial function within the executive branch of government. Jurisdiction is limited to fact finding within the context of administrative hearings involving taxes, licensing, permitting and rate-making. Acted as an appellate body in matters involving occupational licensing and foster care licensing, among others. Conducted public hearings and decided the reasonableness and need for regulations promulgated by certain state agencies;

(b) Elected by the General Assembly in February 1999 to Circuit Court. Re-elected in February 2002. Court of general jurisdiction covering civil and criminal matters. Also appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate, and probate cases."

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

"(a) Ward v. South Carolina, 98-CP-40-4069, reversed 538 S.E.2d 245 (S.C. 2000). Ward, a federal retiree, filed suit against the state seeking to have declared unconstitutional statutes enacted providing state retirees a 'rebate' on income taxes in response to Davis v. Michigan. The State filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was granted on the basis that Ward failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue and the Administrative Law Judge Division. The Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that exhaustion of remedies was not required when the sole issue for determination involves the constitutionality of a statute. Neither the Department of Revenue nor the ALJD has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute;

(b) Collins Holding Co. v. Defibaugh, Ct. App. reversed on one issue, 2007 WL 1148140. Collins Holding Co. filed suit seeking damages against a competitor for a variety of claims. The issue was whether the Defendant engaged in unfair trade practices for allowing certain video game machines that employed a 'reflexive payout' feature. A number of other issues were raised by Collins on appeal;

(c) Sloan v. Greenville County, et al., 99-CP-23-4464. Mr. Sloan sued Greenville County seeking to declare its action unlawful in connection with the procured construction of the family Court Building Expansion. The County sought dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Mr. Sloan did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The decision found that Sloan had standing to bring the action against the County as a taxpayer when the legislative acts sought to be enjoined are unlawful;

(d) Jordan, et al. v. Holt, et al., 96-CP-26-3792, reversed by Ct. App.; Ct. App. reversed by S. Ct., 362 S.C. 201, 608 S.E.2d 129 (2005). This was a non-jury trial in partners in a failed restaurant venture sought dissolution of the partnership, an accounting of the assets and claims for damages from the operation of the business. The trial lasted one week and involved voluminous documents, checks, records and photographs;

(e) Cooke v. Palmetto Health Alliance, affirmed by Ct. App., 367 S.C. 167, 624 S.E.2d 439 (Ct. App. 2005). Workers' Compensation case in which Mr. Cooke sought to receive benefits under the Act. The legal issue was whether Cooke was a statutory employee."

Judge Lee reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) Candidate for Circuit Court At Large Seat 10. Election in April 1997, withdrew two days before the election. Seat won by James R. Barber, III;

(b) Also candidate for Circuit Court At Large, Seats 1 and 7. Withdrew candidacy when Commission nominated me as a candidate for Seat 11 in February 1999;

(c) Candidate for Court of Appeals, Seat 1, Seat 3, and Seat 6. Elections occurred in 2003 and 2004. In all cases I was found qualified by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, but I was not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

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

Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children.

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

"(a) American Bar Association (1985 - 90);

(b) South Carolina Bar Association;

(d) Richland County Bar Association;

(e) Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (July 1987 - June 1988);

(f) Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987 - 1989);

(g) National Conference of State Trial Judges (2007)."

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

"(a) Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc. (1987 - present);

President 1994 - 98;

Vice President 1993 - 94;

Corresponding Secretary 1990 - 93;

(b) Columbia Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (1992 - present);

Parliamentarian 1995 - 97, 2001 - 2007;

Chairperson 1995 - 96;

(d) St. Peter's Catholic Church Parish Pastoral Council (1998 - 2001);

(e) Honored by the S.C. Chapter of the National Association of Bench and Bar Spouses in April 1999;

(f) Leadership South Carolina, Class of 1999."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Lee has ably served on the Circuit Court bench for the past eight years. They noted her patient demeanor and professionalism she has exhibited as a judge.
(12) Conclusion:

the Commission found Judge Lee qualified and nominated her for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Thomas A. Russo
Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 12

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Russo 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 Russo meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Russo was born in 1955. He is 52 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Russo 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 1987. Judge Russo is also licensed in Georgia. He was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1988; and he was temporarily suspended for nonpayment of dues. However, he is currently in good standing with both the Georgia and South Carolina Bars.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Russo 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;

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

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

"Conference/CLE Name Date(s)

(a) 2007 Annual Judicial Conference 08/21/07;

(b) 2007 SC Plaintiff Trial Lawyers Conference 08/02/07;

(d) 2007 Annual Civil Law Update 01/26/07;

(e) 2006 SC Defense Trial Lawyers Conference 11/09/06;

(f) 2006 National Judicial College New Judges 10/06/06;

(g) 2006 Annual Solicitors Conference 09/25/06;

(h) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 08/24/06;

(i) 2006 SC Plaintiff Trial Lawyers Conference 08/06/06;

(j) 2006 Annual Criminal Law Update 01/26/06;

(k) 2006 Annual Civil Law Update 01/26/06;

(l ) 2005 SC Defense Trial Lawyers Conference 11/03/05;

(m) 2005 Annual Solicitors Conference 09/26/05;

(n) 2005 Annual Judicial Conference 08/24/05;

(o) 2005 SC Plaintiff Trial Lawyers Conference 08/04/05;

(p) 2005 Orientation School for New Judges 07/11/05;

(q) 2005 Annual Criminal Law Update 01/21/05;

(r) 2005 Annual Civil Law Update 01/21/05;

(s) 2005 Annual Solicitors Conference 09/25/05;

(t) 2005 SC Plaintiff Trial Lawyers Conference 08/04/05;

(u) 2004 Annual Solicitors Conference 09/27/04;

(v) 2004 Annual Criminal Law Update 01/23/04;

(w) 2003 Annual Solicitors Conference 09/29/03;

(x) 2002 Annual Solicitors Conference 09/30/02;

(y) 2002 NCDA Career Prosecutor Course 06/17/02."

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

"(a) Business Law at Florence/Darlington Technical College 2001 - 2005;

(b) 'Trying DUI Cases in Municipal & Magistrates Courts' for S.C. Solicitors Association 2002."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Russo 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 Russo reported that prior to his election to the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Russo was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1987.

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

"(a) June 2005 to Present - Circuit Court Judge At Large, Seat # 12 - 12th Judicial Circuit Florence & Marion Counties.

Preside over all matters before the Circuit Court, i.e. Jury & Non-Jury Trials, Motions, Hearings, Pleas, etc.;

(b) February 1999 to June 2005 - 12th Circuit Solicitors Office - Florence, S.C.

Deputy Solicitor focusing on violent crimes & drug cases. Prosecute those type cases throughout the 12th Circuit;

Served as the contract Public Defender for the referenced counties while maintaining my private practice of law. Represented indigent defendants in General Sessions Court;

(d) October 1995 to February 1999 - Law Office of Thomas A. Russo - Edgefield, S.C.

General practice of law with an emphasis in plaintiff's personal injury work; also criminal defense, real estate closings, probate, contracts and adoptions;

(e) November 1993 to October 1995 - Law Offices of Ronald A. Maxwell - Aiken, S.C.

General civil trial practice in all state and federal courts doing plaintiff's personal injury work, workers compensation, products liability & wrongful death litigation;

(f) September 1991 to November 1993 - 2nd Circuit Solicitors Office - Aiken, S.C.

Deputy Solicitor focusing on all drug cases. Prosecute those type cases throughout the 2nd Circuit. Aided in establishing a multi-jurisdictional drug task force coordinating law enforcement agencies in the circuit's 3 counties;

(g) March 1988 to September 1991 - Knox & Zacks, P.A. - Augusta, Georgia.

Medical malpractice defense of physicians and hospitals. Plaintiff's construction litigation, contracts and auto torts;

(h) September 1987 to April 1988 - Law Offices of Mitchell Willoughby - Columbia, S.C.

Communications law; Public Utilities law; Administrative law; Plaintiff's civil work;

(i) December 1986 to September 1987 - Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Court - Greenville, S.C.

Law Clerk to Judge Anderson preparing briefs and memoranda for the Court and assisting Judge Anderson in carrying out the business of the Court."

Judge Russo reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"June 2005 to present, as a Circuit Court Judge elected by the S.C. Legislature. His jurisdiction is limited to the trial courts of S.C."

The following is Judge Russo's account of his five most significant orders:

"(a) Lane v. Gilbert Construction Company, LTD., Granting Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial Absolute;

(b) State of S.C. v. Omar Sharitt Gentile, 2007 SCCA 4244 - 050807 - Court of Appeals overturned my ruling of a drug suppression hearing;

(c) Bostic v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Opinion No. 4278 - Court of Appeals reversed my granting of Summary Judgment in favor of Bostic;

(d) Gregory v. County of Florence, C/A # 04-CP-21-1315 - Order denying Defendant's motion for J.N.O.V. and New Trial Nisi Remittitur;

(e) Mozingo v. Ford Motor Co., Horne Ford, Inc., Autoliv, Inc., et al., C/A # 04-CP-21-1999 - Order Granting Defendant, Autoliv, Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's motions for Protection and Reconsideration.

Judge Russo further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In February 2005 I was a candidate for the position of Resident Circuit Court Judge for the 12th Judicial Circuit. Prior to the election, I withdrew from the race because it became evident that I would not have the votes necessary to prevail and saw no need to waste the Legislature's time in going through the voting process. The legislature elected the Honorable Michael G. Nettles to that position by acclamation."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Russo to be "very qualified for the office he is seeking." They noted that "he spoke very enthusiastically about his love of his position on the Circuit Court."

Judge Russo is married to Cheryl Matthews Russo. He has three children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) Florence County Bar Association;

(d) American Bar Association;

(e) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;

(f) National College of District Attorneys."

Judge Russo provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: "Member of Central American Mission team at Lamb's Chapel church."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Russo demonstrates integrity and good judicial temperament. They noted that he has shown a strong enthusiasm as a jurist during his two and half years of serving on the Circuit Court bench.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Russo qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

James E. Chellis
Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 13

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

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

Mr. Chellis was born in 1951. He is 56 years old and a resident of Summerville, South Carolina. Mr. Chellis 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 Mr. Chellis.

Mr. Chellis 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. Chellis reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Chellis 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;

Mr. Chellis 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. Chellis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. However, his performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions did not meet expectations.

Mr. Chellis described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) 17th Annual Claims and Underwriting Seminar 11/06/2002;

(b) 20/20: An Optimal View of 2002 12/20/2002;

(d) Current Developments in Commercial

Real Estate 10/10/2003;

(e) 18th Annual Claims and Underwriting

Seminar 11/05/2003;

(f) 19th Annual Claims and Underwriting

Seminar 11/03/2004;

(g) What It Is, What It Was And What It

Shall Be 12/17/2004;

(h) Attorney ECF Training 08/10/2005;

(i) 20th Annual Claims and Underwriting

Seminar 11/16/2005;

(j) 27th Annual Duke University Estate

Planning Conference 10/6-7/2005;

(k) Current Litigation Seminar 2006 04/28/2006;

(l) 28th Annual Duke University Estate

Planning Conference 10/5-6/2006;

(m) Discouraging Family Estate Litigation 07/24/2006;

(n) 21st Annual Claims and Underwriting

Seminar 11/15/2006;

(o) Recent Developments in Real Estate 12/08/2006."

Mr. Chellis reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"Course: 'Discouraging Family Estate Litigation through Proper Planning and Administration;'

Lectures: 'Tips for Drafting Estate Planning Documents;' 'How to Administer Trusts & Estates to Anticipate and Avoid Litigation;'

Course: 'Resolving Real Estate Title Defects;'

Lectures: 'The Quiet Title Suit and Other Actions;' 'Party Wall, Driveways/Roads, Agreements and Other Party Agreements;' 'Monetary Settlements and Escrow Agreements.'"

Mr. Chellis reported that he has published the following:

"For each of the two seminars at which I presented, the following articles were published:

(a) 'How to administer trusts & estates to anticipate and avoid Litigation' (National Business Institute, Summer 2006);

(b) 'The quiet title suit and other Actions' (National Business Institute, Fall 2006);

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Chellis 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. Chellis reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Chellis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.

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

"(a) November 9, 1977 - July 1977: Prettyman, Chellis & Cordray.

During this short period, I was engaged in general civil litigation and transactional matters. I also handled both retained and appointed criminal defense cases because at this time, Dorchester County did not have a Public Defender. During this time, I participated in my first jury trial, and defended an elderly, retired military officer in an action for malicious injury to personal property. The case was prosecuted by the Solicitor's office in the magistrate's court.

I was also exposed to my first civil trial at this time. We represented the beneficiary of a life insurance policy who was denied benefits under the policy because the insurance company asserted the insured committed suicide within two years of the inception of the policy. The case was tried in federal court to a jury. I did not try the case, but I did handle extensive research on specific issues raised in the suit.

The transactional cases I dealt with involved primarily residential real estate. Dorchester County, and, in particular, Summerville, has experienced steady growth for the entirety of my career. Because of this growth, real estate transactions have been a constant in my career. At this early stage, my practice included the actual title examination and closing of single family residential real estate matters. I also began doing a smattering of simple estate planning, drafting wills and trusts, and organizing small businesses. These transactional cases have also been a constant in my career.

In addition I was involved in a variety of other cases, such as motor vehicle accidents resulting in personal injury, divorce, separation, child custody, breach of contract cases, probate administration and litigation, and, surprisingly, several fraud cases. During this period, I considered and actually pulled, copied and read what I thought was the full body of South Carolina fraud cases in anticipation of writing an article about the South Carolina law of fraud. The project ultimately fizzled because of time constraints, which largely arose out of my decision to separate from the firm and 'go solo', only eight (8) months after being admitted to the Bar.

One of my first cases was a probate litigation case. This case is notable to me because it taught me that a general practice will expose one to significant legal issues. The case involved an omitted spouse's claim to her husband's estate. This rather factually simple case had an interesting twist because the primary beneficiary, whom I represented, was the decedent's grandchild, the child of an illegitimate child. His name was incorrectly stated in the decedent's Will thus raising the issue of the competency of the decedent. The wife also argued South Carolina's 'bastardy statute' barred the grandson from inheritance. This case is memorable to me because the lawyer on the other side of the case became a Circuit Court Judge and later served on the Court of Appeals. I settled this case, but not without interesting debate over the then recent case of Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977), declaring statutes restricting the intestate inheritance of illegitimate children from their fathers unconstitutional.

While this case showed me early in my career that a general practice is fertile ground for challenging issues, I began to develop a loyal client base. My first client remains a client of mine today. I organized a company for him, later drafted his Will, settled his father's Estate, and today I am settling his mother's estate, whose Will I drafted many, many years ago.

I make this point here because the general practice of law in a small town presents ever challenging and unique issues for a lawyer. I learned that what may appear to be a mundane matter often presents in its details cutting edge legal issues. I also learned that clients will remain clients if you handle each matter as if it were your first with the client. It is from this background of exposure to a wide variety of cases, with differing factual circumstances and situations, and with clients of varying social and economic standing, that I have come;

(b) James E. Chellis, Attorney at Law - July 1977 to August 1980.

During these three years, I continued my general practice but began to pick up several clients that required me to broaden the scope of the general practice. I paid my overhead by handling real estate matters. I was able to pay myself by handling civil trial matters, including family law cases, and an occasional retained criminal matter. I continued to receive appointed criminal cases.

The practice of real estate law then was quite a bit different than it is now. I continued to search the titles for property transactions in which I also was the closing attorney (today I hire contract abstractors). I spent the greater part of my time during this period in the record room examining titles. I do not regret the time I spent there because, frankly, I think examining titles was enormously helpful in learning how to practice law and practice it carefully. Invariably, in the course of a title examination, one has to examine a civil litigation or probate file. My mentoring was not through the Bar Mentoring program, which did not exist then, but came by way of reading through the pleadings, motions, correspondence and the orders in these case files. In short, this is when and where I incubated and began to grow as a lawyer.

On September 5, 1978, two months after I opened my solo practice, I was appointed to a capital murder case. A local merchant was robbed and gunned down by four assailants. Four men from Florida were arrested and charged with the murder. Circuit Court Judge Rosen began appointing lawyers in St. George and Summerville to represent the defendants. The Solicitor announced he would seek the death penalty and each defendant was appointed two lawyers. This case occurred before the criminal appointment process was done by rotating through the Bar Roster. I was not considered for appointment initially because of my lack of experience. But when the entire County Bar was exhausted, but for me, Judge Rosen appointed an Orangeburg attorney to handle the first chair and me to the handle the second chair. This appointment was ten months after I was licensed to practice law. The Solicitor tried each defendant separately and our client, who was allegedly the 'trigger man,' was left for the last trial. Our client defended his innocence from the beginning, without faltering, in his claimed alibi. The case ultimately went to trial resulting in an acquittal.

This case is the only capital murder case on my resume. In defending the client, I handled most of the leg work and legal research.
I conducted the direct examination of the defendant, who took the stand in his own defense.

Nearing the end of this period, the national economy began to falter. The character of my practice likewise began to change. The new federal bankruptcy code had been enacted, which introduced the concept of the individual re-organization plan (Chapter 13). Few members of the local bar handled bankruptcy cases, and I had clients who needed this service. I studied the law and filed a Chapter 7 case for a contractor. Other cases followed. Other lawyers referred bankruptcy cases to me, in particular, a local well known grocery store owner, whom I will discuss in the next time period of my practice. In bankruptcy law, one must be capable of dealing with all and sundry areas of substantive law as well as navigating the unique procedural issues of the Bankruptcy Court. Learning bankruptcy law was a first of several practice 'extensions' that I have undertaken during the course of my career.

During this period, I continued to handle family law matters. My first personal injury matter was a worker's compensation case. I have continued to handle workers compensation. However, in the most recent five years or so, I have associated counsel in these cases because of work load constraints. I also took a case that challenged administrative civil fines based on a warrantless search of a local miner's office by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which I challenged on a Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure argument. I also handled various personal injury cases.

I picked up two corporate clients, a steel fabrication contractor, and an automobile dealership. The former client wanted me to handle its commercial collection cases, one of which I discuss later, and the latter client engaged me to defend a fraud and misrepresentation claim. After handling the fraud case, I began handling this client's claims for deficiency judgments arising from recourse financing of the dealer's installment sales contracts financed by the manufacturer's credit company. Through these two clients, I began to handle debtor-creditor relation cases, on behalf of both debtors and creditors. At the end of this period of my career, however, I decided to stop taking marital litigation cases;

During this period, my partner and I tried to establish a business and estate planning boutique firm. This concept did not play well in Summerville as the client base was limited and the national economy tanked. In 1982, or shortly thereafter, Congress eliminated many of the tax advantages small businesses enjoyed (closing the widely politicized loop-holes), e.g., the investment tax credit and accelerated depreciation, and changed the estate tax such that very moderate estates were no longer subject to estate taxes (incremental increases In the unified gift and estate tax credit). These changes in the law caused my partner and I to re-evaluate our boutique concept. I continued to handle the collection cases of the steel fabrication company and began handling a significant number of collection cases for the automobile dealership. So, we began to take civil trial matters again, particularly commercial debt collection. To improve our client base, we enlisted in a forwarding service to develop this practice. I renewed my earlier practice of workers compensation and a few family law matters and continued to handle bankruptcy cases. I also continued to handle residential real estate matters. Our litigation practice began to grow and an opportunity to associate a lawyer to handle our increasing trial work presented itself. At that time, my current partner joined our firm;

(d) Fall of 1983 - May 1995; Chellis, Mortimer and Frampton, P.A.

During this thirteen year period, my practice changed as the needs of my clients changed. In particular, as the economy changed, my practice changed. I continued real estate matters, and by referral of a few cases from other lawyers, I developed a practice in real estate litigation, particularly curing title defects. During the early 1980's the national economy remained sluggish and many of my clients continued to suffer financial hardships that led to bankruptcy. I also had handled a number of Chapter 7 cases by this time, as well as a few Chapter 11 cases. The one case of the grocer, however, was exceptional as other grocers, with the same national distributor, were closing down. At first blush, this case appeared to be a circumstance of the national economy. However, drawing on my experience in fraud cases, and discussing with my client the facts surrounding his business failure, I associated another more experienced attorney, and we filed a suit in the federal court alleging fraud and a RICO claim against a national food distributor. The case required extensive discovery. I had recently been asked by two younger attorneys to be their mentor, and I associated these two attorneys to go through a warehouse of documents and assist in research. I handled most of the trial preparation, including overseeing the discovery. The case was settled the day I was scheduled to take the depositions of the defendant's chief executives. One of those younger lawyers became a Probate Court Judge, and is now serving as a Family Court Judge in our circuit.

Other cases came my way involving employee injuries in the work place. Some of these cases evolved into third party claims, e.g., third party claims against an at-fault driver. One third party claim that I brought in Federal District Court bottomed on product liability against the manufacturer of a come-a-long lifting device. Another workers compensation case evolved into a products claim against a paint manufacturer. The former case involved extensive discovery and expert testimony, including a mechanical engineer with a subspecialty in tensile strength of wire and an economic loss expert. The former was tried unsuccessfully to the jury; and the latter involved the tricky rules of federal preemption regarding military contracts. Another products case, in which I associated counsel, involved an alleged manufacturing defect in a heart catheter used in angioplasty. This case also had federal preemption issues, which arose out of the federally regulated drugs and medical devices.

I also continued to build a practice base around small businesses. Much of this work was transactional in nature, and included counseling parties on the form of business in which they should engage, drafting partnership and shareholder agreements, and negotiating and drafting agreements for the sale and purchase of business assets. Quite naturally, one significant evolution of a business planning practice in a small town involves the enforcement of contracts. To this end, I have represented many local businesses in breach of contract actions, claim and delivery actions, mechanics liens, and debt collection actions. One significant non-jury case that I tried, for my steel fabricator client, had as its central issue the failure of a buyer to notify my client, the seller, of a nonconforming product it sold. By statute, the failure to notify the seller of the nonconforming goods bars any remedy. I proved the failure of notice, won at the trial level, and the case was affirmed on appeal. Southeastern Steel Company v. W.A. Hunt Construction Company, Inc., 301 S.C. 140, 390 S.E.2d 475 (Ct. App. 1990). This case has been discussed or cited in at least three cases and used as secondary source material in well over twenty instances.

I continued to represent car dealerships. I associated counsel in a case brought against one of my dealership clients by the South Carolina Consumer Protection Agency involving claims alleged for violations of the SCCPA. This case was eventually settled prior to trial, and again highlights the breadth of experience I have gained in my career as a lawyer in Summerville.

During this time, I also brought foreclosure actions on commercial mortgages. I have also defended a commercial mortgage foreclosure action, in which I tested the waters of lender liability in a failed real estate development evolving out of the local depression that occurred after closure of the Charleston Naval Base.

As the economy began to improve in the mid 1980's, I began to represent a number of real estate developers. This work is, for the most part, transactional in nature. Nonetheless, and I think importantly, as it relates to one's judicial merit, I worked on clearing a major development obstacle on a large tract of land to be developed into single family residential homes around a golf course. The title defect was created by a landowner in the late 1960's when he subdivided on paper a large tract of land (more than 1,000 acres) and showing many unopened roads in the subdivision. The developer then sold 300 to 400 lots on land contracts that referred to the plat he recorded. Many of the streets were never built. I represented a developer who purchased the residual tract of the 'paper subdivision', and prepared and gathered on its behalf a waiver and release of the private implied easement that the lot owners had to the paper streets. Our efforts in gaining nearly 100% cooperation from those landowners (over several years effort) were successful because we prepared a clear, concise and easily readable waiver and release and approached each landowner with a transparent, honest explanation of the goal we were attempting to achieve and invited them to seek advice from their own attorney should they chose to do so.

This development has been a success story. The properties of these folks, who were perhaps 'boondoggled' in the late 1960's, has enjoyed tremendous appreciation in value since the golf course development began (this residential development continues to be developed to date).

By the end of the 1980's the economy was on the upswing generally. So, with a major change in the Bankruptcy Code, I decided to stop taking these cases. The cost of staying current was expensive and the number of these cases declined in the improving economy. By this time I had also stopped taking debt collection cases forwarded to us via the forwarding service to which we had subscribed;

(e) Chellis & Frampton, P.A. (formerly Chellis & Frampton, LLP) - May, 1995 to Present.

My motor vehicle personal injury cases dried up as the mass media advertising model for attracting these cases took hold. After the loss of a trial in a automobile accident case, my client, who was rendered disabled from the accident, needed help filing a Social Security Disability claim. I decided to learn this area of the law, and filed his claim. Since then, I have taken a number of disability claims for clients to the Office of Hearings and Appeals. This expansion was the last time I literally decided to extend my practice into a new substantive area of law.

I have, however, handled a few wrongful death cases, two federal tort claim cases (with associated counsel), and more recently associated a complex torts litigation firm to bring a class action case for property damage resulting from a very high occurrence of copper water pipes pitting (corroding) and causing very incipient water leaks that led to property damages in innumerable homes in and around Summerville. This case was brought as a class action. The class was not certified and because of the high costs associated with litigating each claim, individually, the case has ended. However, the two years of preparing this case for filing, and the extensive discovery in a complex litigation case gave me significant experience as to the proper investigation of a complex tort claim prior to filing and the necessary depth of the discovery process. I participated in all of the discovery and met with several expert witnesses used to develop the basis of the claims. Although I did not argue the class certification, I did attend the extensive class certification hearing.

I have also continued to handle real property litigation matters. I tried a complex implied easement case before the Master-in-Equity and successfully proved the implied access. I have prepared and successfully concluded the closing of a street to facilitate the commercial development of a large tract of land for a shopping center.

In the transactional aspects of the practice, I was local counsel to two complex commercial real estate developments.

On September 11, 2001, a start-up corporate client of mine turned on the switch of its manufacturing plant in Edgefield County. I was counsel to the client in the negotiation of and closing of $28,000.000.00 in financing to begin this venture. The venture created several hundred jobs in Edgefield County. Unfortunately, the first business day of operations for the company was one of the worst days in American history. The company's ability to gain market share for its laminated wood product was totally interrupted by the events of 9/11. In the aftermath of a slow economy the company could not gain enough traction to push through the sluggish economy. Unfortunately this company did not survive through the Spring of 2002.

I previously mentioned in this response that the drafting of wills and trusts has been a constant in my practice. I have been efficient in estate planning for clients whose assets range from very moderate to as much as $5,000,000.00. This amount is my arbitrary cut off. For the clients who have assets exceeding this threshold, I refer to estate planning specialists. My Wills and Trust Practice is now becoming a probate administration practice. I have received referrals from other lawyers for probate matters involving litigation because of my litigation background.

Currently, I have my bread and butter real estate practice, wills, trusts, and estate planning, and business planning practice. I have a young associate who helps in large part with this work. I also am involved in several real estate litigation matters, two are suits to quiet title and partition of lands, and one is a boundary dispute. I also recently tried successfully a trespass to quiet title case. My personal injury cases currently involve a slip and fall (third party claim arising from a work-related injury), and a wrongful death claim. The latter case was evaluated for a latch design defect case; however, the client recently decided not to pursue this."

Mr. Chellis further reported:

"(a) Criminal Law Experience

I have not handled any Criminal law matters in the last five years. My criminal experience dates to the cases I handled in the first five or six years of my practice, which are generally described above. I have handled several post-conviction relief cases in the past five years. While these are civil cases, the review of the cases I handled have required consideration of the substantive law and procedural law. One PCR case involved an armed robbery charge, and was defended by a Public Defender. The Petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. I raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction at the PCR hearing, successfully argued that the indictment failed to properly allege the crime. The court agreed with the latter but denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim;

(b) Civil Trial Law

The following is a brief description of the civil trial matters handled over the last five (5) years: suit for corporate dissolution of an LLC; enforcement of subdivision restrictions; partition of beneficiary's interest in decedent's residence; defense of claim of breach of fiduciary duty of an agent under a general durable power of attorney; defense of negligence claim against a surveyor, social security disability, fair housing discrimination, eviction from a foreclosed home, commercial collection, breach of warranty, personal injury from a motor vehicle accident, defense of negligence, product liability and warranty claims in an EBS (stucco) case, boundary line dispute, suits to quiet title, as associated counsel in a class action case and a mesothelioma case.

Corporate dissolution of an LLC as Plaintiff's counsel; issue involves alleged malfeasance of a member; procedural history: summons and complaint filed; answer filed; parties are attempting to settle without alternative dispute resolution and/or trial.

Enforcement of subdivision restrictions as Plaintiff's counsel representing the Homeowners Association; the issue is whether a homeowner complied with the restrictive covenants in construction of a pool. The lis pendens, summons and complaint and answer are filed; parties are in discovery; and trial is pending before a Special Referee.

Partition of beneficiary's interest in decedent's residence as Plaintiff's counsel; the issue involves the right of a beneficiary, who has filed bankruptcy, to partition and sell decedent's residence. Procedural history: filed a summons and petition on behalf a Chapter 7 Trustee from Massachusetts, the answer has been filed, and a hearing has been held granting the petition and directing the Personal Representative to sell the residence.

Defense of claim of breach of fiduciary duty of an agent under an earlier general durable power of attorney; procedural history: My client's attorney in fact filed a suit in Dorchester County to declare a subsequent general durable power of attorney void because the principal's physician opined that the principal lacked capacity at the time she executed the second Power of Attorney. The attorney in fact designated in the second Power of Attorney filed suit in the principal's County of residence alleging breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust and accounting of the acts of the first agent. I filed a motion to dismiss the second suit for the reason that a case was already pending in which the same facts and circumstances were at issue. The trial judge denied the motion. I dismissed the first suit, answered the second suit and plead as counterclaims the allegations of the first suit. The case is presently pending and the parties are engaged in discovery.

Defense of negligence claim against a surveyor; issue was whether the surveyor properly identified a flood zone; procedural history after pleadings and discovery, the case was settled through mediation.

Defense of corporation in motor vehicle accident in which potential damages exceeded the insured's liability coverage; the procedural history involved assisting the corporation's President in answering discovery; defending the deposition of the President of the corporation; assisting insurance counsel for the corporation in the arguing a motion for summary judgment on the issue of scope of employment; and defending a declaratory judgment action filed by one of the insurance carriers.

Defense of teacher's suspension for violation of school internet policy and sexual harassment of a student; the catalytic issue was whether the teacher's email to a blog sponsored by a gay and lesbian political action committee constituted hate mail (the teacher had recently published a book of fiction exposing a love affair between a high school teacher and a student). While investigating this, a student filed a claim that alleged sexual harassment. The procedural history was a letter of objection to the Superintendent; denial of the objection to the suspension; and application for an opportunity to be heard on the allegations. After investigation of the alleged violation of the school board's internet policy, and response of the teacher, the teacher opted to resign and keep his credentials without the school making a finding.

Social Security Disability cases; the issues are disability as defined under the Social Security Act; procedural histories are application for appeal before an Administrative Law Judge, and hearing.

Fair Housing discrimination; the issue was whether a tenant could be evicted because she suffered from cancer; procedural history was to file a claim with the South Carolina Department of Human Affairs, which manages Fair Housing Complaints. The complaint, and demand for conciliation, and negotiation of damages through the South Carolina DHA. I represented the claimant.

Eviction from a foreclosed home; the issue was enforcement of Master's decree, which directed sheriff to remove tenants in possession; procedural history was a demand and negotiation of time for tenant to vacate.

Breach of warranty, defense of negligence, product liability and warranty claim in an EBS (stucco) case; procedural history: after pleadings and discovery, the case was settled through mediation. I represented the seller of the house, a defendant.

Boundary line disputes; the issues involve establishing paramount title and proper survey; I have represented plaintiffs in these cases. Two cases were referred by title insurance companies, one was a retained case. Two cases were tried before the Master in Equity after discovery. One was settled after pleadings and discovery was completed.

Quiet title and partition suits; the issues are to determine and declare the ownership in fee simple of the property and seek authority of the court to partition the property by private sale. The procedural history includes: filing the lis pendens, summons and complaint; petitions for the appointment of the guardian nisi, then absolute; preparing affidavits and petitions for Order of Publication; procuring service on all defendants; Affidavits for default and motions for default; motions and Orders for referral to the Master in Equity; preparing for and attending hearings on the claims; preparing proposed orders for the Master."

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

"(a) Federal: None;

(b) State: Moderate frequency."

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

"(a) Civil: 100 %;

(b) Criminal: 0%;

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

"(a) Jury: 0%;

(b) Non-jury: 100 %."

Mr. Chellis provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

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

"(a) Southeastern Steel Company v. W.A. Hunt Construction Company, Inc., 301 S.C. 140, 390 S.E.2d 475. (Ct/App 1990). This case is significant because it establishes that the failure to give notice to a seller of nonconforming goods in a commercial sale of goods, bars the buyer from a set-off for the costs of curing the goods. It also establishes that notice to the seller is not required to be in writing;

(b) Goodwin v. Johnson, Circuit Court order dated, June 19, 2001. The issue in this case involved whether an implied easement arose where the common grantor sold the servient estate and retained the dominant estate. There is dictum in the leading South Carolina case, Brasington v. Williams, 143 S.C. 223, 141 S.E. 375 (1927), which allows authority for the implied easement if the access is strictly necessary. The present case turned on this issue. I was able to prove that my clients' access over the servient estate was strictly necessary to the enjoyment of the retained property, which my client acquired. I tried this case. My client, retained different counsel to respond to the Defendant's appeal. Notably, the trial order was affirmed on appeal. The following is the appeal history: Goodwin v. Johnson, Op. No.2001-UP-323 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 19, 2001). Goodwin v. Johnson, 357 S.C. 49, 591 S.E.2d 34 (Ct. App. 2003) (NO. 3696), rehearing denied;

(c) The Herschel Hall case (I opened this case October 20, 1992 and closed it July 23, 1997). This case was a third-party claim arising from a work-related injury and is significant because my client had suffered a totally disabling event as a result of a motor vehicle accident at a 't-bone' intersection controlled by a traffic light. The factual issues required me to evaluate the timing of the change in signal from green to amber to red in conjunction with the speed of an automobile being driven at the speed limit at the intersection. The discovery in the case involved the design and trip timing device issues of the traffic signal at the intersection. Because my client's injury was a work ending injury, there were significant economic losses. Thus, I required an economic loss expert. On balance, the case required a trial and the client would not accept the proffered offer to settle. I lost this trial on the liability issue, and my client's disability prompted me to learn the law of Social Security Disability;

(d) My first criminal trial in magistrate court (1978). This case is significant because it was my first criminal trial and taught me that clients do not always tell the truth during preparation for trial. In this case my client adamantly denied the alleged malicious injury to personal property. He insisted on taking the stand in his defense. On my direct examination, I asked my client if he did the crime of which he was accused. My client did not lie on the stand, admitting he committed the crime, and railed about the injustice he had been subjected to by his neighbor;

(e) In re James R. Andrews, Jr., Debtor, 15 BR 717 (1981), I represented creditors in a Chapter 13 case in which the creditors objected to the proposed plan on the grounds: that a Chapter 13 plan may not be used to 'cram down' a defaulted and accelerated mortgage; and that a person other than the debtor may not cure the default on a long term secured claim. The court held the debtor's proposed plan violated the intent and spirit of Section 1322(b) (5) and was not compatible with the 'fresh start' philosophy of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, in denying confirmation of the plan, the Court concluded that the plan, which allowed a third person to assume the debtor's right to cure the default of the long-term obligation, did not come within Section 1322(b) (5), and was contrary to the purpose and spirit of Chapter 13."

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

"(a) Southeastern Steel Company v. W.A. Hunt Construction Company, Inc., 301 S.C. 140, 390 S.E.2d 475. (Ct. App. 1990);

(b) Richards v. Hearn, Court of Appeals, (1998 unreported);

(c) South Carolina Title Insurance Company v. Cooper River Federal Saving and Loan, Court of Appeals, Court of Appeals, (case rendered moot before oral argument);

(d) Stone v. Fox, Court of Appeals, (1999 unreported)."

Mr. Chellis reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Chellis to be "a qualified candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."

Mr. Chellis is married to A'delle H. Chellis. He has two children.

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

"(a) Dorchester County Bar; President, more than twenty years ago;

(b) South Carolina Bar Association;

(d) American Association for Justice f/k/a American Trial Lawyers Association."

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

"(a) Bethany United Methodist Church, Summerville, member and Disciple II leader;

(b) Helping One Student at a Time (HOST), mentor;

(d) South Carolina Gamecock Club."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Mr. Chellis's great demeanor and temperament. They noted his eagerness to serve on the Circuit Court bench. They further noted his dedicated involvement in his local community.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Chellis qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

Allen O. Fretwell
Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 13

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

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

Mr. Fretwell was born in 1974. He is 33 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Fretwell 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 1999.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Mr. Fretwell 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. Fretwell reported that he has spent $342.45 on campaign expenditures.

Mr. Fretwell 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;

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

Mr. Fretwell described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Conference/CLE Name Date(s)

(a) 7th Annual Meeting 05/13/07;

(b) 2006 Annual SC Solicitors 09/24/06;

(d) 13th Circuit Solicitor's Office 05/06/06;

(e) Avoiding Errors in Closing 09/27/05;

(f) Ethics & P.R. Training Tracks 09/26/05;

(g) Prosecution of Ted Bundy 09/25/05;

(h) 13th Circuit Solicitor's Office 05/08/05;

(i) Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE 09/27/04;

(j) 2004 Annual Solicitor's 09/26/04;

(k) 4th Annual Retreat 05/03/04;

(l) 18th Annual Criminal Law Update 01/24/03;

(m) Trial & Appellate Advocacy 01/23/03;

(n) 3rd Annual Retreat 05/05/03;

(o) 2002 SC Solicitor's Association 09/29/02;

(p) Pretrial Intervention Seminar 04/08/02."

Mr. Fretwell reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) CLE Speaker, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Conference

Topic: Applicability of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments Right to Counsel;

(b) Guest Speaker, Bob Jones University Criminal Justice Association

Topic: A Prosecutor's Role;

Topic: The Courts;

(d) Judge, We The People: Project Citizen (7/14/06);

(e) Attorney Coach, Bob Jones Academy Mock Trial Team (2000 - Present);

(f) Attorney Coach, Bob Jones University Mock Trial Team (2004 - 2005);

(g) Judge, Greenville County Youth Court;

(h) Presiding Judge, American Mock Trial Association Regional Tournament;

(i) Scoring Judge, American Mock Trial Association Regional Tournament;

(j) Scoring Judge, National High School Mock Trial Competition (2005)."

Mr. Fretwell reported that he has published the following articles:

"'Growing up With Grandparents' Today's Christian Senior (Spring 2007) **Article title may reflect editorial alteration."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Fretwell 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. Fretwell reported that he has never been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Fretwell was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1999.

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

"Assistant Solicitor, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit - August 1999 to Present."

Mr. Fretwell further reported:

"Drug cases comprise the majority of my prosecutorial workload. Common issues involved in drug cases include: (1) evaluating the credibility of undercover informants; (2) identifying police conduct implicating the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches & seizures; (3) determining the propriety of police-citizen encounters and interrogation of suspects within the Fifth Amendment framework; (4) verifying proper chain of custody for all fungible items and (5) responding to these and other suppression motions through oral argument.

I am also responsible for handling virtually all of the arson cases made in Greenville County. Common issues in arson cases include: (1) evaluating the process employed by law enforcement and arson investigators in determining cause and origin; (2) reviewing the thoroughness of the investigation to rule out accidental and natural causes; and (3) learning the scientific process utilized by analysts to determine the presence of ignitable liquids and fuel loads in preparation for presenting this evidence at trial.

Serving as the liaison for law enforcement Cold Case Units, I am responsible for evaluating the sufficiency of evidence and providing an alternate perspective for pursuing leads and uncovering additional evidence. I have also had the opportunity to secure convictions in a double homicide that had been cold for over four years prior to arrest and have served as co-counsel in other murder cases. I am currently assisting in a capital prosecution and for which I conducted the preliminary hearing that resulted in the case being bound over for Grand Jury action.

Although I have not handled matters of a civil nature since I was a law clerk and in law school, I have been responsible for knowing and applying the rules that apply to civil practice. A prosecutor can aptly be described as a criminal law 'specialist.' I am responsible for knowing and applying the Rules of Evidence in the same manner as those whose practice is restricted to the civil arena. Moreover, I must know and apply the Rules of Criminal Procedure in addition to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Not only must I comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern the behavior of all lawyers, I must also follow the additional rules of conduct that govern prosecutorial behavior.

In the same manner that a general practice attorney will study and become conversant in an area of law with which he or she is not familiar, a criminal lawyer can apply case evaluation and trial strategy skills in becoming conversant in the civil arena.

Additionally, I have been involved in the mock trial program in South Carolina for seven years. The cases considered by the mock trial programs are evenly divided between civil and criminal subject matter and require an understanding of the distinction between civil and criminal cases such as burdens of proof and legal presumptions. I have served as the attorney coach for the Bob Jones Academy team who, during my tenure, twice won the State Championship and, in 2004, won the National Championship. I have also served as an attorney coach at the middle school and collegiate levels. I have served as a judge, both presiding and scoring, on the high school and collegiate level, and have most recently served as a presiding judge in multiple rounds at the American Mock Trial Association's District Competition hosted by Furman University. I served as a judge for the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2005. I participated in the creation of Greenville County's school-based Youth Court Program and have served as a judge in this program many times. I have served as a judge for the South Carolina Bar's 'Project Citizen' program hosted by Clemson University and was, for a number of years, a judge in competitions presented by the National Forensic League."

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

"(a) Federal: None;

(b) State: In court 2 weeks out of every month; 1 week was usually spent making appearances for guilty pleas and occasional suppression motions; the other week was spent in trial court-1 or 2 trials were submitted for the docket each month and 2 to 5 cases went to trial each year (the others were resolved in a guilty plea or a bench warrant for failure to appear)."

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

"(a) Civil: 0%;

(b) Criminal: 100%;

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

"(a) Jury: .01%;

(b) Non-jury: 99.9%.

I carry 250 to 350 warrants on my docket at any given time, dispose of 500 to 600 warrants a year and try 2 to 5 cases a year. That doesn't even register as a percentage point."

Mr. Fretwell provided that he most often served as sole counsel or chief counsel; associate counsel in some instances as a mentor or assisting another prosecutor in a complicated murder case.

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

"(a) State v. Carla Taylor, 260 S.C. 18, 598 S.E.2d 735 (Ct. App 2004); Overruled State v. Chisolm, 355 S.C. 175, 584 S.E.2d 401 (Ct. App 2003), and established the current test for establishing chain-of-custody for drug cases in South Carolina;

(b) State v. Jomer Hill, This was the first cold case arrest, to the best of my knowledge, since the Greenville Police Department started its Cold Case Unit several years ago. The defendant was arrested four years after his crime in January of 2000 and was convicted of double-murder at trial in May of 2006;

(c) State v. Gustavo Alvarado, AP 2005-UP-120 (Ct. App 2005). Defendant was convicted of Trafficking in Marijuana and was sentenced to 18 years. Defendant appealed on the basis that the stop was pretextual and not supported by probable cause. The Court of Appeals disagreed and the conviction was affirmed. A significant aspect of this case was that the passenger, Gallegos, testified that the drugs were his and the defendant, Alvarado, didn't know anything about them. The case on appeal focused on the element of the defendant's ability to exercise dominion and control over the drugs or over the premises upon which the drugs were found;

(d) State v. Jermaine Hawkins, Defendant was convicted in absencia of two counts each of Armed Robbery and Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature. This case is significant to me because of the profound effect these crimes had on the victims involved and the fact that an identification of the defendant was strong enough to convict the defendant in his absence. The defendant petitioned for post-conviction relief and his application was granted since the trial judge did not specifically advise the jury panel that the defendant's absence should not be held against him, although I advised the jury of this responsibility during closing arguments. The Attorney General's Office is currently appealing the granting of PCR;

(e) State v. Jeffrey Motts, Handled the preliminary hearing where this currently pending capital-murder case was bound over for grand jury action."

Mr. Fretwell has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.

Mr. Fretwell reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"Aside from the quasi-judicial office Assistant Solicitor, I have never held a judicial office."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found that Mr. Fretwell's qualifications "meet and exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative critieria."

Mr. Fretwell is married to April Elaine Fretwell. He has no children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar;

Member, SC BAR Nominating Committee 2007 - 2010;

Member, House of Delegates 2002 - 2003; 2006 - 2007;

Member, Law Related Education Committee 2004 -Present;

(b) Greenville Bar Association (in process of joining);

Prospective Member, 2008."

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

"(a) Roper Mountain Science Center;

President, 2007 - 2008;

Member, 2001 - Present;

The RMSCA is a non-profit, eleemosynary 'friends' group that supports the Roper Mountain Science Center (RMSC) through fundraising, volunteer recruitment and community involvement. The RMSC is a facility dedicated to the education of school-aged children and young people in the sciences and is owned and operated by the School District of Greenville County;

(b) Center for Developmental Services Children's Carnival;

Volunteer, 2004 - 2007;

Member, 1986 - Present."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Fretwell is known as a fair and even tempered prosecutor with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's office. They noted that Mr. Fretwell demonstrated at the Public Hearing that he is a man of high integrity. They further noted his contributions to the state bar through his service on several key committees.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Fretwell qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Eugene C. Griffith, Jr.
Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 13

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

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

Mr. Griffith was born in 1964. He is 43 years old and a resident of Newberry, South Carolina. Mr. Griffith 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 1991.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Mr. Griffith 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. Griffith reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Griffith 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;

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

Mr. Griffith described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Rule 417 and The Bank 05/09/2002;

(b) Stewart Title TIPS Seminar 11/12/2002;

Auto Injury Case

(d) Hot Tips from the Best 09/19/2003;

(e) Tips from the Bench 12/12/2003;

(f) Estate and Tax & Charitable 02/11/2004;

(g) S.C. Family Court Bench Bar 12/03/2004;

(h) Getting the Big Picture -

History of Rules of Evidence 12/20/2004;

(i) Ethic and the Oath 12/21/2004;

(j) Getting the Big Picture - Part I 12/28/2004;

(k) Field Sobriety Tests in DUI 12/28/2004;

(l) Demonstrative Evidence in DUI - Part V 12/30/2004;

(m) Real Life Solutions for Small Firms 10/07/2005;

(n) Stewart Title TIPS Seminar 11/11/2005;

(o) Sop: Sec. 1031 Transactions 12/13/2005;

(p) SC Solicitors Association

Conference - Prosecution Accountability 09/24/2006;

(q) SC Solicitors Association

Conference - Partners in Prosecution 09/26/2007."

Mr. Griffith reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) I taught the legal section in Newberry County to students who enrolled in the Reserve Police Officer Certification Classes. Over the past ten years, I have taught four or five groups of candidates;

(b) In 1999, I taught the Legal unit to the Volunteers for the Newberry County Guardian ad Litem program."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Griffith 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. Griffith reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Griffith was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.

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

"(a) March 1991 thru July 1991: Clerk to the Honorable James E. Moore - Circuit Court;

(b) July 1991 thru June 1992: Clerk to the Honorable John P. Gardner - S. C. Court of Appeals;

(c) July 1992 thru February 1997: Solo practice as Griffith Law Firm - general practice of law. My office has handled real estate transactions, mortgage closings, magistrate's trial work, criminal trial defense, civil trial work, domestic relations trial work, and estate and probate matters;

(d) February 1997 thru present: In February of 1997, Rushing and Griffith, P. C. was formed by Eugene C. Griffith Jr. and Elizabeth R. Griffith. The scope and type of law practice did not change significantly and was operated as a general practice. Don S. Rushing bought into the corporation and opened an office in Lancaster, South Carolina. Don S. Rushing has operated a limited practice in the Lancaster office. Over the last several years, the scope and type of work performed in the Newberry office has changed slightly. In January of 2005, I agreed to work as a special prosecutor for the Eighth Judicial Circuit for the terms of General Sessions Court held in Newberry County. Since agreeing to act as special prosecutor, I have been unable to accept cases as a criminal defense attorney. In the last several years, I have handled numerous condemnation actions on behalf of the SCDOT."

Mr. Griffith further reported:

"Additionally, I have been appointed under Circuit Court rules in numerous civil cases to act as special referee for non-jury matters, such as partitions and foreclosures.
In regard to my experience in criminal matters, I have been fortunate to handle numerous cases in both the magistrate's court and the Court of General Sessions. I accepted representation and was appointed to many cases as a criminal defense attorney for more than thirteen years. My practice area was primarily Newberry County but I was retained by clients to appear in the counties tangent to Newberry County. Over the years, I have defended clients by plea or trial for various charges including: all drug offenses, burglaries of all levels, criminal domestic violence, driving offenses including felony DUI, Murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, assault and battery of high and aggravated nature, criminal sexual conduct, as well as variety of other offenses.

In January of 2005, I agreed to accept the position of special prosecutor for the Eighth Judicial Circuit. My agreement with Solicitor Jerry Peace allows me to prosecute cases in Newberry County. As a prosecutor, I have had the opportunity to work closely with law enforcement and the victims of crimes in evaluation and preparation of cases for trial or plea. The experience I have gained advocating as a prosecutor has given me a new perspective of the criminal justice system which I did not have prior to my taking the position as special prosecutor.

The experiences which I have gained as a prosecutor and defense attorney have taught me a great deal about the nature of people. First, I have learned that both victims and defendants want to be heard. Second, I have found that if one takes the time to listen to the 'whole story' from a litigant, whether a victim or an accused, and let him or her explain his or her perspective of what happened, then most people will, in turn, listen to my advice as to how to proceed in prosecuting or defending the matter within the parameters of the law, of its rules, and its procedures.

In regard to my experience in civil matters, I have handled a variety of matters, including condemnations, breach of contract, negligence, and other civil matters. I have had the opportunity to represent clients in personal injury/negligence cases as a plaintiff's attorney. I have handled several wrongful death actions, including a wrongful death of a 12 year old boy who was electrocuted in shallow water next to a dock which had electricity improperly wired upon it. On behalf of the boy's parents, we brought a negligence action against both the dockowner/landowner and SCE&G. We alleged negligence against the property owner for improper installation and maintenance of the dock and also alleged negligence against SCE&G for improper licensing and inspection of the dock. The homeowner settled prior to the trial. SCE&G prevailed on the issue that it owed no express or implied duty to person such as the plaintiff.

Additionally, I have had several cases which allowed me to act as defense counsel representing insurance carriers against personal injury claims. I represented a boat dealer involved in a products liability action. The dealer and manufacturer were both sued by the estate of a customer who purchased a 'used' boat and drowned shortly after taking delivery of the boat. The boat manufacturer settled. I defended boat dealer along with his liability insurance carrier on the issues of failure to disclose and negligence. The case was tried twice: the first trial resulted in a hung jury and the second trial ended in a defense verdict.
I have acted as the City Attorney for the City of Newberry for the past twelve years. In my capacity as City Attorney, I have litigated several cases which have involved annexation issues and electrical service territory disputes between the City and the local Rural Electrical Cooperative. I was involved in a very complex case involving the forced sale of facilities, equipment, and customers from the local Rural Electrical Cooperative to the City. This case was brought by the local Cooperative under a statute which states that a cooperative can force a municipality to purchase facilities, equipment, and customers after the customers and facilities had been annexed by the City over a period of years. This case presented some unusual factual, legal, and procedural questions for both of the parties. The case was tried before an arbitration panel, and then appealed by both parties to the circuit court and the appellate court.

I have appeared as local counsel for the South Carolina Department of Transportation in condemnation matters which involved the relocation and widening of several bridges and roads in Newberry County. The actions involved damages as a result of the acquisition of land, easements, and construction easements from the affected property owners.

I have acted as Special Referee for numerous cases involving non-jury matters. Most of these actions involved the partition of land among joint land-owners or the foreclosure of mortgages.

I believe that my civil court experience is broad and well-balanced between plaintiff and defense work. I believe that this breadth of experience has allowed me to gain a wide perspective by representing individuals who had small claims as well as clients who had severe injuries or even death. I have represented large entities such as small businesses, large corporations and government entities, which are protecting the business interests, shareholders' interest, or citizens' interests. The practice of law is interesting and challenging in that it is an occupation and profession, particularly in a small town, where the clients choose the lawyer and not the converse. I have been fortunate in my practice because I have been able to represent and advocate a wide variety of cases for clients from both sides of the civil court and the criminal court. I believe this diversity of experience is important in that it should provide me a wealth and breadth of understanding the differing perspectives of the litigants who appear in court and the advocates who represent them."

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

"(a) Federal: none;

(b) State: average 5-10 days per month."

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

"(a) Civil: 60% (20% civil trial work, 40% real estate transactional work);

(b) Criminal: 25%;

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

"(a) Jury: 10%;

(b) Non-jury: 90%."

Mr. Griffith provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

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

"(a) Newberry Electric Cooperative v. City of Newberry, 2005 UP-585 (2005). This case was brought by the Newberry Electric Cooperative (Coop) against the City of Newberry (City) under a statute which allows a Cooperative to force a municipality to purchase its facilities, equipment, and customers when the facilities, equipment, and customers have been annexed by the City over a period of years. This case is significant because the statute under which the action was brought has not been widely used in the past. The use of the statute by the Cooperative can have implications in the planning process of municipalities and electrical cooperatives in building facilities for future customers and in future annexations of areas;

(b) SCDOT v. Fretwell et al., C/A Nos. 2003 CP 36- 049, 050, 051, and 052. This multi-parcel condemnation case involved the widening of an overpass along Interstate 26. The condemnation involved many issues regarding economic loss, highest and best use, uneconomic remnants, and loss of access. This case is significant because of the large amount of land needed for the project as well as the variety of issues regarding damages to the landowner. This case was settled prior to trial;

(c) State v. Randall Scott Foster, 354 S.C. 614, 582 S.E.2d 426 (2003). Thomas H. Pope, III and I defended for Randall Scott Foster on charge of murder and use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a violent crime. After a three day trial, the Defendant was acquitted of murder but was found guilty of manslaughter by the jury. Mr. Pope and I did not represent Foster on appeal. His conviction was reversed on appeal because a prior consistent written statement of the eyewitness (16 year old daughter of the deceased) was allowed to be admitted into evidence by the State in an attempt to bolster her credibility after her cross examination. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Manslaughter and remanded the case for a new trial. Foster was recently allowed to plead to Manslaughter and received time served;

(d) State v. James Edward Wise, 98 GS 36 402. I was Court appointed counsel for Defendant on charge of Burglary 1st and Escape from Custody. This case is significant in that it was the first case tried before a jury in Newberry County under the amended statute where, if the defendant was convicted, the judge had to sentence him to life without parole because of his prior criminal history;

(e) Thornhill v. SCE&G and Arnold, 99 CP 36 421. November 15, 2001. I was co-counsel with Don Rushing and Samuel Price in this wrongful death action which involved the death of a 12 year old boy who was swimming in the edge of Lake Murray when he was electrocuted in the water near a dock. The action was brought alleging breach of multiple duties and negligence against the property owner, the tenant of the property, and SCE&G. The Plaintiff alleged that SCE&G owed a duty under its FERC license to recreational users of the lake, the duty being to require any construction (docks) which it licensed within its property to be performed by a licensed contractor and under applicable building codes. The property owner and tenant settled with the plaintiff. The trial court granted SCE&G a directed verdict ruling that no duty was expressed or implied under the FERC license. The case was not appealed."

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

"(a) Newberry Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. City of Newberry, Court of Appeals, 2005 UP 585 (2005). Co-counsel for appeal with Robert T. Bockman, Esquire;

(b) Betty J. Hancock v. Mid South Management Co. Inc., Appealed from 2004-CP-36-171. Appeal Still Pending. Co-counsel for appeal with Samuel M. Price, Jr., Esquire;

(c) City of Newberry v. Newberry Electric Cooperative, Inc., Court of Appeals - January 6, 2003 Opinion No. 3589. Co-counsel for appeal with Robert T. Bockman, Esquire;

(d) City of Newberry v. Newberry Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Appealed from 2003 CP 36-237. Appeal still pending. Co-counsel for appeal with Robert T. Bockman, Esquire;

(e) Elizabeth Goodyear et al. v. Todd Clamp and Angie Drafts, Court of Appeals - August 13, 1996, 96 UP 251. Handled appeal without co-counsel."

Mr. Griffith reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Mr. Griffith further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I was a candidate for House of Representatives District 40 in November 2002. I lost the general election to Walton J. McLeod."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Griffith to be "very qualified for the position he is seeking. He has knowledge of the law, has good common sense and is dedicated and hard working. If chosen, Mr. Griffith would definitely be an asset to the judicial system of South Carolina."

Mr. Griffith is married to Elizabeth Rushing Griffith. He has three children.

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

"(a) Newberry County Bar Association, Secretary/Treasurer: 1992, 1993, Vice-President: 1994, 1995; President: 1996 and 1997;

(b) Newberry County Public Defender Corporation Board: 1994 thru 2004;

(d) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, Member: 1993 to present;

(e) American Association for Justice (formerly ATLA), Member: 1995 to present;

(f) American Bar Association, Member: 1991 to present."

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

"(a) Central United Methodist Church. Administrative Board, Chair 1998, 1999, and Church Treasurer 2005, 2006, and 2007;

(b) Newberry Country Club. Board of Directors 2000-2002;

Dixie Youth Baseball, Assistant Coach 2005, 2006, and 2007;

(d) Newberry County Chamber of Commerce - Member 1998 to present;

(e) Piedmont Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications - September 18, 2004 thru March 4, 2006."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Griffith would offer his well-balanced legal experience to the Circuit Court bench. They noted how his compassion and the challenges he has dealt with in life would assist him well in dealing with litigants and attorneys who would come before him. They further noted the service he has provided to the legal profession as well as his community.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Griffith qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Larry B. Hyman, Jr.
Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 13

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

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

Mr. Hyman was born in 1949. He is 58 years old and a resident of Conway, South Carolina. Mr. Hyman 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 Mr. Hyman.

Mr. Hyman 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. Hyman reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Hyman 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;

Mr. Hyman 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. Hyman to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hyman described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) 17th Annual Criminal Law Update January 25, 2002;

(b) The Art of Advocacy, III November 22, 2002;

(d) 2003 Associate Counsel

Condemnation Workshop November 14, 2003;

(e) 2003 Associate Counsel

Condemnation Workshop (Teaching)November 14, 2003;

(f) How to Get Paid November 15, 2003;

(g) 19th Annual Criminal Law Update January 23, 2004;

(h) Winning DUAC/DUI cases March 26, 2004;

(i) 3rd Annual Federal Practice September 10, 2004;

(j) Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE October 10, 2004;

(k) 20th Annual Criminal Law Update January 21, 2005;

(l) Handling DUI Cases April 15, 2005;

(m) Ethics 2000 December 13, 2005;

(n) Probate Bench/Bar September 15, 2006;

(o) 22nd Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update January 22, 2007."

Mr. Hyman reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I lectured at an approved CLE Seminar hosted by the South Carolina Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in Charleston, South Carolina on May 26, 1997. My topic included technical aspects of the BAC DataMaster Breath Machine and legal aspects of its adoption for use in South Carolina. I also lectured at an approved CLE Seminar hosted by the South Carolina Department of Transportation on November 14, 2003, in Columbia, South Carolina. My topic was Trial Techniques in Condemnation Trials."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Hyman 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. Hyman reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Hyman was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

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

"I began my legal career following the bar exam in the fall of 1976. I was associated with Attorney Donald L. Van Riper out of Greenville, South Carolina. I worked as a paralegal for Mr. Van Riper until I passed the bar exam. Thereafter, I became a partner and practiced in the areas of criminal, domestic and real estate law until April of 1977. In 1977, I returned to Horry County. My separation from Mr. Van Riper was on good terms and we remain friends to this day.

Upon my return to Horry County, I was given the opportunity to take over the practice of Attorney Sidney T. Floyd who had recently been elected as Resident Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Judge Floyd had been a sole practitioner engaged in the general practice of law for a number of years. This opportunity allowed me to begin practice as a sole practitioner. For approximately one year, Attorney Morgan Martin joined me in my practice. Mr. Martin was with me during 1979/1980 until he took a position as Deputy Solicitor in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. I have been a sole practitioner since Mr. Martin's departure.
During the first ten years of my practice, I was primarily engaged in domestic law. Family court cases accounted for approximately 70% of my practice. The remainder of my practice included criminal law, real estate, contract litigation, and personal injury. In 1987 I ceased practicing any domestic law. I continued to have an active criminal law practice. However, my civil litigation has expanded significantly. In addition to the usual personal injury cases, I have successfully handled malpractice, wrongful death, construction, and condemnation cases. I am still active in real estate and general business law. Civil litigation accounts for 70% of my practice. My experience in the criminal courts ranges from handling traffic matters to capital cases. On the civil side of the court, I have experience handling complex plaintiff's cases as well as defending the State Department of Transportation in very complex condemnation cases.

From April of 1984, through June of 1987, I served as Municipal Judge for the City of Conway, South Carolina. My responsibilities included the trial of all cases, compliance with Court Administration Reporting Rules, accounting for fines received, the issuance of all warrants for offenses occurring within the City of Conway, presiding over preliminary hearings and setting bonds in all cases but those involving potential penalties of life imprisonment or capital punishment."

Mr. Hyman further reported:

"Staff has assured me that it would not be necessary to list all of the cases I have handled over the past five years. I have been advised that the purpose of my response is to give the Judicial Merit Selection Commission an overview of my experience in criminal and civil matters. A full listing of my cases over the past five years would include well over 200 cases.

In the civil arena, I have represented the State of South Carolina in over 60 condemnation cases. In that my condemnation cases involved expansion of existing roadways within the metropolitan area of Myrtle Beach, the litigation has involved every conceivable issue associated with damages to property or condemnation in general. Additionally I have been sole counsel in four Wrongful Death/Survival Actions and the associated Probate Court matters within the past five years. My civil practice has also included several cases involving business or contractual matters as well as approximately 25 personal injury cases. I can fairly describe my civil experience as being very broad based involving practically every type of civil case from medical malpractice to business matters.

In the area of criminal practice, I have handled probably 175 cases or more in the past five years. My cases have ranged from death penalty cases to traffic matters. I include in my criminal practice, Post Conviction Relief Applications. Although these are truly civil matters, they are based primarily in criminal procedure. My most recent PCR involved the death penalty for a mentally retarded inmate, (State v. Ricky George). The case was somewhat interesting in that we were able to apply the newly approved definitions and criteria for establishing retardation resulting in the reversal of a death sentence for Mr. George. My other criminal work has involved crimes against person and property as well as a substantial amount of drug related cases. I have also tried literally dozens of felony DUI and DUI cases which make up a substantial part of the criminal cases in South Carolina. In summary, please let me state that I do not feel that I lack experience in any area. There are areas where I have tried cases more often than others. However, having practiced law for 31 years, I feel very comfortable with my experience level in the Circuit Courts. Should the commission require any more detailed information, I will be happy to provide the same."

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

"(a) Federal: My federal practice has been somewhat limited. I have probably handled approximately ten (10) federal cases during my career. I have just recently ended a wrongful death action which I was required to bring in the Federal District Court. Presently, I have one criminal case pending in the Federal District Court;

(b) State: During the last five (5) years, I have probably appeared before our state courts over l50 times."

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

"(a) Civil: 60%;

(b) Criminal: 30%;

(d) Other (real estate, wills, probate): 10%."

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

"(a) Jury: 20%;

(b) Non-jury: 80%."

Mr. Hyman provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

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

"(a) State v. Alvin Owens, (capital case). Following Mr. Owens conviction for capital murder, his case was affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Twenty-eight (28) days before his execution date I was appointed to represent him on a Post Conviction Relief Application. I obtained a stay of execution. Approximately one (1) year later I tried the matter before the Honorable Don Rushing. This Post Conviction Relief Trail lasted four and one half (4 1/2) days. The Petitioner was granted relief in the form of a trial de novo. Judge Rushing's ruling was upheld by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Upon re-trial of Mr. Owens' case, he received a life sentence;

(b) Hardee Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Judy and William Brown, (white collar crime). This case involved a very complex scheme by which the Defendants conspired to misappropriate approximately $600,000.00 from Hardee Manufacturing Company, Inc. At the time the criminal case was tried, the Solicitor's Office in Horry County had no one with experience in the area of white collar crime. I prepared the case and assisted the prosecutor during trial which resulted in a conviction. Following the criminal trial, I filed a Civil Action which resulted in judgment against both defendants. The case is significant in that it involved a very sophisticated multilevel conspiracy that spanned a period of six (6) years. The proof of damages required a thorough understanding of the accounting principles and evidentiary principals that would allow me to reconstruct the Plaintiff's damages;

(c) South Carolina Department of Public Transportation v. Myrtle Beach Farms, Inc., (condemnation action). This case was a condemnation matter which was brought by me on behalf of the South Carolina Department of Transportation in conjunction with the widening of US Highway 501 near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. This was one in a group of approximately sixty (60) cases involving significant damages which I was retained to litigate for the State. The case is significant in that it involved almost every damage issue recognized by the South Carolina Courts in condemnation matters. Damages were alleged to flow from loss of visibility, noise, changing access, loss in access, disruption in parking and a cost to cure. The State offered approximately $500,000.00 but the Landowners were seeking approximately $8,000,000.00. After four (4) days of trial, a verdict was returned for the same amount offered by the State prior to trial;

(d) Thelbert T. Bellamy as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mamie Bellamy v. Adam J. Bailey & Mayflower Transit, LLC, (wrongful death action). This case involved an eighteen wheel truck collision with a passenger vehicle. The victim, a seventy-two year old unemployed female, died instantly. Just before trial the case was settled for $l,360,000.00. The case is significant in that it involved experts in the field of accident reconstruction, a human factors expert, a transportation safety expert and an economic loss expert. The case is also significant in that normally where liability is admitted, experts on causation would not be necessary. However, in this case experts were used to demonstrate that the truck driver had violated federal regulations concerning time on the road and that he had fabricated a
driver's log. The case demonstrates the expanding and more frequent use of experts in trials;

(e) Mark W. Snowberger, Irene Snowberger and Port City Electric Company, a North Carolina Corporation v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., (construction/termite). The Plaintiffs owned a $3,000,000.00 beach house in Georgetown County. The house was clad on the exterior with a synthetic stucco product. Some years after construction the house was determined to have approximately $360,000.00 in termite and water damage. The case is significant in that it involved product defects, construction defects and improper infestation treatment. The contractor/builder had filed bankruptcy and had no liability insurance. The sub-contractor who applied the synthetic stucco could not be located. The only possible recovery would be from the termite treatment provider. The case involved the use of experts to calculate mixed damages and to separate the termite damage from damages created by improper installation of the synthetic stucco. The resulting verdict was within l0% of our experts calculation of damages ($l85,000.00)."

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

"(a) Catherine Mende v. Conway Hospital, Inc., 404 S.E. 2d 33, 304 SC 313(1990);

(b) A.C. Thomas, Jr. v. Katherine Vereen Mitchell and Deborah G. Vereen, 336 S.E. 2d 154, 287 SC 35(1985);

(d) Judy McNair Cooper v. Charles Cooper, 289 SC 377, 346 SE 2d 326 (1986)."

The following is Mr. Hyman's account of a criminal appeal he has personally handled:

"State of South Carolina v. David R. Evans, Court of Appeals, October 8, l997, 97-UP-548."

Mr. Hyman reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"On April 2, 1984 I was appointed City Judge for the City of Conway, South Carolina. I served until June 30, 1987. Jurisdiction of this court allowed me to issue all arrest warrants and search warrants for criminal offenses of any nature occurring in the city. I was also charged with the responsibility of setting bonds for all defendants except those charged with crimes involving a potential penalty of life in imprisonment or death. The courts trial jurisdiction involved all offenses having a potential penalty no greater than $200.00 in fines and/or thirty days in jail."

Mr. Hyman reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge:

"I was the City Judge for the City of Conway, South Carolina from April 2, 1984 through June 30, 1987. My job responsibilities included the issuance of search warrants, the issuance of arrest warrants, setting bonds, bench trials, jury trials, filing reports required by the Court Administration, forwarding traffic tickets to the Department of Highways and Public Transportation, conducting preliminary hearings, collection of fines and maintaining the necessary records reflecting disbursement of those fines."

Mr. Hyman further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) In 1998, I withdrew as a candidate for Resident Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, seat number two. My reason for doing so was that the Honorable Paula Thomas was an At Large Circuit Judge in Georgetown County. When she decided to run for the vacant resident seat, making her at large seat available statewide, I realized any further attempts to secure the resident seat would be futile;

(b) I have just completed an unsuccessful race for a vacant resident Circuit Judgeship for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. The election was won by the Honorable Ben Culbertson on May 3, 2007."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Hyman to be qualified based upon their interview with him in the Spring of 2007.

Mr. Hyman is married to Meredith Valois Hyman. He has two children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association 1976 to present;

(b) Horry County Bar Association 1976 to present;

(d) South Carolina Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (Founder)."

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

"Trinity United Methodist Church. I have been a member for 25 years. I teach the senior men's Sunday school class. I have rotated through the Pastor Parish Committee (Chairman), Finance, Trustees and Endowment Committee. I am also the Church's unofficial cook."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Hyman is a well-qualified and highly respected member of the legal community. They noted that he is held in great regard by his local community. They further noted that his well-rounded legal experience would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Hyman qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Linda S. Lombard
Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 13

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

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

Ms. Lombard was born in 1943. She is 64 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Ms. Lombard 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 1976. Ms. Lombard is also licensed in the State of Alabama since 1967 and the State of Georgia since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Ms. Lombard 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. Lombard reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Ms. Lombard 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;

Ms. Lombard 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. Lombard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

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

"(a) 09/07/2007 Annual Convention;

(b) 09/06/2007 Annual Convention;

(d) 01/26/2007 22nd Criminal Law Update;

(e) 01/26/2007 22nd Criminal Law Update;

(f) 01/05/2007 7th Annual Attorney Assistance;

(g) 11/03/2006 Magistrate Mandatory School;

(h) 09/13/2006 Annual Convention;

(i) 08/12/2006 Steroids & the Ethics of Baseball;

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

(k) 01/27/2006 Fourth Annual Criminal Law Update;

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

(m) 11/4/2005 Magistrates Mandatory School;

(n) 01/07/2005 Criminal Seminar;

(o) 11/19//2005 Judicial Oath of Office;

(p) 07/26 thru 08/06/2004 Orientation Program for New Judges;

(q) 07/22/2004 Revised Lawyer Oath CLE;

(r) 11/21/2003 Family Law Seminar;

(s) 12/09/2003 Indoctrination;

(t) 10/05/2003 Annual Convention Part One;

(u) 12/12/2003 Annual CLE."

Ms. Lombard reported that she has taught the following law-related course:

"Lectured at CLE on qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO) relating to equitable distribution awards in Divorce Case: Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Law, factors, drafting. Guest lecture at Charleston School of Law on factors to consider in setting bonds, procedures, and attorneys' preparedness."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Lombard 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. Lombard reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."

Ms. Lombard reported that she has held the following public office:

"Charleston County Council, January 1, 1985 thru Dec 31, 1994, elected. All ethics reports filed in timely manner."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Ms. Lombard was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

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

"(a) Charleston County Bond Hearing Court - Magistrate

First Term: July 1, 2004 to April 30, 2007

Second Term: May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2011;

(b) Private Practice of Law

January 1981 - June 30, 2004

General Practice, Criminal and Civil Litigation, Corporate

Real Estate, Family Law;

January 1977 - December 1980

Emphasis on prosecution of violent crimes, murder, rape,

robbery & child abuse;

(d) City of Charleston Annexation Coordinator

June 1976 - December 1976

Directly responsible to the Mayor. Organized local political

and civic leadership meetings, prepared brochures and

position papers;

(e) Town Planning Properties Corporate Attorney
January 1970 - June 1976

Consultant to urban planning firm on institutional

management, and Federal and State Citizen Participation

Programs;

(f) Legal Aid Society Of Birmingham, (Alabama) Staff Attorney

December 1968 - September 1970

Civil (State & Federal), criminal, and juvenile litigation.

Advisor to civic groups;

(g) Private Practice Of Law Birmingham, Alabama

September 1967 - December 1968

General Practice of Law: civil, criminal and juvenile

litigation."

Ms. Lombard further reported:

"I served as Assistant, and then, Deputy Solicitor for four years, prosecuting cases from Driving under the Influence 2nd offense, Grand Larceny, drug offenses, child abuse and rape to Capital murder, with special emphasis on violent crimes. I, also, worked on docket scheduling, handled extraditions and administered a Federal Grant Program. In private practice, I defended cases from Magistrate's charges to Capital Murder. My Civil Practice has also run an extensive and interesting course. I represented a Special Purpose (Fire) District for 20 years, a governmental client, handling personnel matters, land and equipment purchase contracts, construction contracts and financing agreements, as well as litigation and intergovernmental agreements. For other private clients, I have negotiated and drafted complex land sale contracts, Sec 1031 Tax Deferred Exchanges and represented these clients in litigation over contract disputes. I have appeared before Boards, Appealed Boards decisions to the Circuit Court, and litigated those issues.

I now reference my Probate Practice and Family Court Practice which I respectfully submit, exemplify my ability to handle varied and complex issues preparing me for the broad spectrum of civil litigation to be faced in Circuit Court. My Probate practice including the drafting of wills, trusts, powers of attorney and associate documents, as well as Probate Litigation. My Family Court Practice included separation and divorce negotiations and litigation involving child custody and change of custody, complex business and personal assets valuations and determination of all income, including 'hidden' income and benefits, in determining alimony, child support, and equitable distribution.
My law practice has been varied, challenging, and interesting, giving me the experience necessary to deal with the many issues faced in Circuit Court."

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

"(a) Federal: Minimal;

(b) State: 4 yrs on Bench, Prior 5 yrs, and 8-15 times per year. "

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

"Prior to 2004 when became a Magistrate:

(a) Civil: 40%;

(b) Criminal: 10%;

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

"(a) Jury: 8%;

(b) Non-jury: 92%."

Ms. Lombard provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

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

"(a) W.O. Thomas, Jr. Treasurer, et al v. Cooper River Parks & Playgrounds Commission, St. Pauls Fire District, et al., (1993.cp.10.1647). Charleston County brought an action against all public and special service districts in the County, alleging, in part, that Districts with appointed officials had no authority to levy taxes (only elected officials may tax) and that annual approval of their budgets by the legislature constituted 'local legislation' in Violation of the Home Rule Act, as did appointment of commission Members. Further under Home Rule, only Charleston County had Authority to tax for the Districts, approve their budgets, and appoint their Governing bodies.

The trial court agreed with the County's position and authority over those Districts was granted to Charleston County. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in part as to elected Commissioners in Districts existing prior to Home Rule. Had St. Paul's appealed, the Commissioners would be forced to run in a public election, they wanted to remain appointed considering the cost of such an election, and, therefore, did not appeal. The decision had a significant effect, albeit not a detrimental one, on he administration of St. Paul's Commission. Please note this discussion of the case is limited to Districts with appointed Boards;

(b) Trico Surveying Inc. v. Godley Auction Co. Inc., 314.S.C. 542, 431 S.E. 2d 565 (S.C. 1993). Decided May 10, 1993. First Case decided under 'Surveyor Statute' S.C. Code Ann. 29.5.21 (1991). Appeal from Trial Court's grant of Summary Judgement to Godley (Landowner) finding that Trico (Surveyor) could not foreclose mechanic's lien against Owner's land for cost of survey made at request of prospective Buyer (Charania). Court further affirmed award of attorney's fees to Godley. The Surveyor's Statute requires there be an 'agreement' to survey the land between the Surveyor and Landowner in order to enforce a mechanics lien Trico contented Godley had knowledge of the survey, and similar factors. Therefore Godley consented to the survey and that consent constituted an agreement.

Court held that Owner permission to Buyer to allow him to have a survey performed was not an agreement under the Statute, but at most Owner's consent was merely its acquiescence for Trico to go on the land.

In upholding award of attorney's fees to Landowner, in accord with the Statute, The Court based its decision on the detailed Affidavit and Resume' submitted by Owner's Attorney, showing the necessity of thorough documentation of fees and court cost.

Case is significant in defining what an 'Agreement' is not under the Surveyor's Statute. Case is, also of utmost importance to the Real Estate Community. The overwhelming majority of Real Estate Contracts For the purchase of multi-use, commercial, industrial and residential tracts; For development permit prospective Buyers to investigate the land prior to Closing by performing wet-land studies, topographical surveys and the like.

Had Surveyor prevailed against Landowner, a disruptive precedent would have been established, allowing prospective Buyers to incur expensive investigative cost, and then pass said cost on to the unwary landowner;

(c) Estate of Tommy Chatman (2003.ES.101163); Graham, et al. v. Frazier, (04.DR.10.981). Suit filed in Probate Court to probate the Estate of Chatman, who died intestate (without a will). Action brought by Ms. Frazier alleging she was Chatman's Common-Law wife and therefore, entitled to serve as administrator of the estate and entitled to a one-half share of the Estate (Chatman's children to share the remaining one-half). Chatman's children contested. Her claim.

Threshhold issue was which Court had jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether or not Ms. Davis was Chatman's common law wife: Probate Court or Family Court. It appears that there were Statutes in both Probate Code and in Domestic Relations addressing the issue. Extensive research was done and in-depth briefs submitted, as well as oral arguments, citing parallel cases, learned treatises, and scholarly works, as no case in point could be found.

Probate Court ruled that Family Court should determine the issue of 'Common - Law Wife'. The Legal briefs submitted by both parties and the Probate Court Order are instructive on the issue of jurisdiction and are available in the Probate Court files;

(d) Burnup (1196.DR.08.584) v. Burnup and Hammond v. Hammond, (1999 DR.08.1333). Family Court for Ninth Judicial Circuit (Berkeley County). In both Burnup and Hammond, Wife sued husband for an absolute divorce on the ground of adultery. Burnup is unique in that husband's infidelity was initially discovered through internet communications between husband and his out-of-state paramour at a time when personal, home internet usage was just becoming common. At trial the voluminous communications were admitted to prove the husband's misconduct.

Both Burnup and Hammond are significant in that they are a microcosm of my law practice in general and Family Court practice in particular. The case involved extensive pretrial discovery, complex valuations of businesses, retirement incomes and other marital assets, and husband's true income, salary plus benefits, company car, gas, expense account, etc. to determine equitable distribution of marital assets and award of alimony. And, in Hammond these valuations were also important to the determination of child support. Custody was, also, hotly disputed. Please note, the Family Court's Final Order in Burnup sets forth an informative discussion of these issues, as well as the issue of fault. Burnup went to trial. Hammond settled after the temporary hearing and motion hearings just prior to trial after extensive pretrial preparation discussed hereinabove;

(e) State v. Jones (Joe Nathan), Court of General Sessions for Ninth Judicial Circuit, Charleston County (File may be in archives in Solicitor's Office). Jones, an adult male, was convicted of raping a 10-year-old female child, causing internal injuries to the child. Jones is representative of the proactive Approach taken by the Solicitor's Office in prosecuting rape (now Criminal Sexual Conduct) cases. Society as a whole, as well as prosecutors, viewed these cases with skepticism, highly suspect of the victims, looking, for underlying motives. Therefore the mere reporting of rape was an intimidating, frightening experience. Our proactive approach educated the public and gave victims the confidence to testify so that rape was exposed for the violent crime that it is, and prosecuted with the same diligence as all other violent crimes. And, those prosecutions lead to active prosecution of child molestation cases."

The following is Ms. Lombard's account of two civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a) Trico Surveying, Inc. v. Godley Auction Co., Inc., 314 S.C. 542,431, S.E. 2d 565 (S.C. 1993) S.C. Supreme Court, May 10,1993;

(b) Simons v. Simons, S.C. Court of Appeals (1996) Case No. 94-DR.10.3128, (Unpublished opinion)."

Ms. Lombard reported she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Ms. Lombard reported that she has held the following judicial office:

"Charleston County Bond Hearing Court, appointed July 1 2004 - April 30, 2007, and May 1, 2007 - April 30, 2011. Jurisdiction: Criminal Bond hearings for Municipal, Magistrate and General Sessions offenses."

Ms. Lombard further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacy:

"Candidate for Solicitor's Ninth Judicial Circuit, 1994, Family Court Judge in early 1980's. Entered race too late and withdrew within 2 weeks."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Lombard to be "an eminently qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."

Ms. Lombard is not married. She has one child.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar and Charleston County Bar;

(b) Georgia Bar;

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

"(a) College of Charleston Alumni Assn. Alumna of the Year (1990);

(b) Cumberland Law School Alumni Assn.;

The Commission commented on Judge Lombard's vast experience in a variety of legal areas. They noted her keen intelligence and knowledge of the law. They further noted her dedicated service as a Magistrate for the Charleston County Bond Hearing Court for the past three years.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Ms. Lombard qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

Samuel S. Svalina
Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 13

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Mr. Svalina was born in 1964. He is 43 years old and a resident of Hilton Head, South Carolina. Mr. Svalina 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 1990.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Mr. Svalina 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. Svalina reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Svalina 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;

Mr. Svalina 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. Svalina to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.

Mr. Svalina described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Conference/CLE Name Date(s)

(a) SCTLA Annual Convention 08/02/07;

(b) Annual Judicial Conference 08/21/06;

(d) Ethics 2000 12/13/05;

(e) SCTLA Annual Convention 08/04/05;

(f) USDCOC Atty ECF T