SENATE JOURNAL 05/04/2007 - South Carolina Legislature Online

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

Friday, May 4, 2007
(Local Session)

~~Indicates Matter Stricken~~
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator COURSON.

REPORT RECEIVED
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications

Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, May 3, 2007
Date and Time Final Report Issued: 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 12:00 Noon.

Judicial Merit Selection Commission

Sen. James H. Ritchie, Jr., Chairman Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel
Rep. F.G. Delleney, Jr, V-Chairman
Sen. Ray Cleary Mikell C. Harper
Sen. Robert Ford Patrick G. Dennis
John P. Freeman Bradley S. Wright
John Davis Harrell House of Representatives
Amy Johnson McLester Counsel
H. Donald Sellers Post Office Box 142 Nancy V. Coombs
Rep. Doug Smith Columbia, South Carolina 29202 E. Katherine Wells
Rep. Fletcher N. Smith, Jr. (803) 212-6092 Senate Counsel

May 3, 2007

Dear Members of the General Assembly:

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

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

Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, May 8, 2007. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, May 8, 2007. In sum, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate's candidacy until the time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's report of candidate qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact the Commission office at 212-6092.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Chairman
F.G. Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman

May 3, 2007

Members of the South Carolina General Assembly
South Carolina State House
Columbia, South Carolina

Dear Fellow Members:

This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate's contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate's behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Spring 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,
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Chairman
F.G. Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

(1) survey of the bench and bar;

(2) SLED and FBI investigation;

(3) credit investigation;

(4) grievance investigation;

(5) study of application materials;

(6) verification of ethics compliance;

(7) search of newspaper articles;

(8) conflict of interest investigation;

(9) court schedule study;

(10) study of appellate record;

(11) court observation; and

(12) investigation of complaints.

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

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

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

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

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's court rooms 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, and Circuit Court.

Donald W. Beatty
Supreme Court, Seat 5

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Beatty was born in 1952. He is 55 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Beatty provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.

(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Com mission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Beatty.

A complaint was filed before the Commission in opposition to Judge Beatty's candidacy. The complainant, Ms. Lynn Boland, was an appellant in a case before Judge Beatty and two other members of the Court of Appeals in 2004. Ms. Boland lost her appeal and in the complaint she filed against Judge Beatty, she claimed that Judge Beatty "did not look at the records on appeal or give meaningful consideration of the case"; that "he merely rubber stamped the decision of the lower court."

Judge Beatty thoroughly responded to the issues alleged in the complaint. The Commission found that Judge Beatty's decision was properly grounded in the applicable law and that it was not the Commission's role to rehear Ms. Boland's appeal. As such, the Commission concluded that Ms. Boland's complaint in no way spoke to Judge Beatty's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

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

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

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

"(a) 17 th Annual Criminal Law Update 01/25/2002;

(b) Circuit Judges' Annual Meeting 05/08/2002;

(d) 2002 Annual Judicial Conference 08/22/2002;

(e) 18th Annual Criminal Law Update 01/24/2003;

(f) The Civil Jury in America 08/07/2003;

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

(h) Judicial Opinion Writing 08/13/2003;

(i) 2003 Annual Judicial Conference 08/21/2003;

(j) New Lawyer's Oath CLE 08/06/2004;

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

(l) 2004 Annual Judicial Conference 08/19/2004;

(m) Wofford & the Law w/the Oath 08/24/2004;

(n) The Fourth Amendment Contemporary

Issues for Appellate Judges 11/04/2004;

(o) SCDTAA Annual Meeting 11/11/2004;

(p) Judicial Symposium - 'Critical Issues

in Construction Defects Litigation' 01/27/2005;

(q) Science in the Courts 04/07/2005;

(r) Economics of Tort Law; Economic Theory

of Contract Law; Crime 05/25-27/05;

(s) Post Conviction Relief Seminar 06/09/2005;

(t) Forum for State Appellate Court Judges 06/23/2005;

(u) Annual Judicial Symposium (Torts

and Scientific Evidence) 07/15/2005;

(v) 2005 Annual Conference 08/24/2005;

(w) Judicial Symposium- 'The Law and

Economics of Punishing Corporate Misconduct' 11/02/2005;

(x) The Fourth Amendment Contemporary Issues

for the Appellate Judge 11/4-11/2005;

(y) 4th Annual Civil Law Update 01/27/2006;

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

(aa) Trial and Appellate Advocacy 01/28/2006;

(bb) 'Critical Issues in Construction Defects Litigation'

03/29/2006;

(cc) Court Security and Operations After a Disaster 06/29/2006;

(dd) Essential Skills for the Appellate Judge 07/01-6/2006;

(ee) Forum for Appellate State Court Judges 07/15/2006;

(ff) Mini Summit on Justice for Children 08/22/2006;

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

(hh) 'Insurance and Risk Allocation in America:

Economics, Law and Regulation' 09/20/2006;

(ii) Employment Law; Immigration Law;

Civil Procedure 9/28-30/2006;

(jj) SCDTAA Annual Meeting 11/09/2006;

(kk) 5th Annual Civil Law Update 01/25-28/2007;

(ll) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update 01/25-28/2007;

(mm) The Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment 2/28-3/02/2007."

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

"(a) Business Law - Limestone College;

(b) Appellate Practice CLE - Wofford College;

(d) Civil and Criminal Law CLE - S.C. Black Lawyers Conference;

(e) Appellate practice CLE S.C. Black Lawyers Conference."

Judge Beatty reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Beatty 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 Beatty reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Beatty reported the following military service: "1974-1976 U.S. Army (Active Duty); 1976-1981 Army Reserves; Captain; Honorable, XXXXXXXX."

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

"(a) S.C. House of Representatives 1991-1995 (elected);

(b) Spartanburg City Council 1989-1991 (elected)."

(6) Physical Health:

Judge Beatty appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7) Mental Stability:

Judge Beatty appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8) Experience:

Judge Beatty was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.

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

"Prior to enrolling in law school I decided that I would commit myself to initially work in an area of the law that would benefit those who could not afford paid legal representation. To that end I enrolled in the legal clinics offered at the University of South Carolina School of Law. The clinics program provided me an opportunity to work with the Legal Services Corporation. During the summers, I interned with Legal Services and the Law Students Civil Rights Intern Program. As a result I was offered, and accepted, a position with Legal Services upon graduation from law school.

From 1979 to 1981 I worked with Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program (NLAP). The work at NLAP was exclusively civil. I gained experience in family law, social security, landlord tenant, and public benefits. I appeared in court on a weekly basis.
I left legal services in 1981 and started my own practice. I was a solo practitioner from 1981-1989. My practice was general in nature and primarily consisted of family law, personal injury and criminal law. I was in court at least two to three times a week and handled a considerable and varied caseload.

In 1989 I joined Beatty, Vick, & Tullis. Our focus was personal injury, criminal law, family law and bankruptcy. In 1991 I left the firm and founded my own firm. We were a small firm with two attorneys, three paralegals and other support staff. The Beatty Law Firm maintained a general practice with emphasis on family law, personal injury and criminal law. Our civil practice represented both plaintiffs and defendants, businesses and individuals."

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

"(a) federal: Infrequently;

(b) state: Weekly."

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

"(a) civil: 40%;

(b) criminal: 30%;

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

"(a) jury: 30%;

(b) non-jury: 70%."

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

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

"Although there were interesting legal issues involved in these cases, I think they were significant more so because of the circumstances of the clients.

(a) State v. Bates - A retarded man who could not read, count or handle his own affairs was accused of being the leader of a drug dealing ring. The Defendant was acquitted;

(b) State v. Cunningham - Armed robbery of a motel. The identification of the defendant was obtained through a line-up tainted by the detective involved. The Defendant was acquitted;

(c) Chrysler Motor Credit v. Ferguson - Credit life insurance was sold to Defendant's husband after full disclosure of heart condition. The decedent signed blank forms for salesman who knowingly completed the forms with false information. Husband died shortly thereafter as a result of a massive coronary. The Defendant prevailed;

(d) State v. Mitchell Frazier - Informant charged as co-defendant in a drug trafficking case. The Defendant was hired to drive a disabled man to South Carolina to visit his family. The Defendant was unaware of the family's drug activities. The State objected to severance of trials. Severance granted, Mr. Frazier was acquitted;

(e) Harris v. Pentex - Workers compensation case wherein the claimant was persuaded by her supervisors not to file a claim. The employer used the statute of limitations as a defense when a claim was filed. Claimant prevailed."

Judge Beatty reported the following concerning civil and criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"I have never argued a case in the appellate court. However, over the past four years I have handled hundreds of appeals as an appellate judge."

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

"(a) S.C. Circuit Court 1995-2003 - Elected - General Jurisdiction;

(b) S.C. Court of Appeals 2003-Present - Elected - Appellate Review."

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

"(a) Myatt v. RHBT, 370 S.C. 391, 635 S.E.2d 545;

(b) Skipper v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, 370 S.C. 267, 633, SE2d 910;

(c) United Student Aid Funds v. S.C. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 349 S.C. 162, 561 S.E.2d 650, 356 S.C. 266, 588 SE2d 599, 356 S.C. 266, 588 S.E.2d 599, (Affirmed by 182 Ed. Law Rep. 949 (S.C. Nov 03, 2003) (NO. 25746);

(d) Ex parte T. Alexander Beard v. Keith Watkins, 359 S.C. 351, 597 S.E.2d 835 (certiorari denied (Sep 22, 2005));

(e) Clear Channel Outdoor v. City of Myrtle Beach, 360 S.C. 459, 602 S.E.2d 76."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Beatty's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found that "Judge Beatty meets the qualifications as set forth in the evaluative criteria. The interviews and other sources utilized have led us to determine that he is well qualified for the position he seeks."

Judge Beatty is married to Angela Chestnut Beatty. He has three children.

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

"(a) S.C. Bar Association;

(b) American Bar Association."

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

"(a) Omega Psi Phi Fraternity;

(b) Progressive Men's Club."

The Commission noted that Judge Beatty is known as a dynamic hard working judge and has very ably served on the Court of Appeals. They commented that his diverse legal experience and knowledge would be an asset on the Supreme Court. The Commission found Judge Beatty qualified and nominated him for election to the Supreme Court.

John C. Few
Supreme Court, Seat 5

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Few meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Supreme Court.

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 Nancy Lockhart, a former litigant before Judge Few. The complaint arose out of an action before Judge Few involving Ms. Lockhart and her former real estate broker. Complainant's real estate broker brought the action against Ms. Lockhart claiming that she denied him his lawful real estate commission from a sale of property owned by complainant. During the trial, Judge Few directed a verdict in favor of broker, and complainant appealed. In May 2005, the S. C. Court of Appeals held that the broker's action was an issue for a jury to decide and therefore reversed Judge Few and remanded the case for a new trial.

In her complaint, Ms. Lockhart asserts that during the trial Judge Few displayed an arrogant, pompous and rude attitude toward her, but did not display such a demeanor toward the plaintiff real estate broker. Complainant also asserted that Judge Few favors the rich and well-to-do and that he unduly pressured her to settle the case on several different occasions.

Complainant previously raised these concerns regarding Judge Few to the Commission on Judicial Conduct ("CJC"). On June 2, 2004, the CJC dismissed the complaint, asserting that "neither the tape recordings nor the transcript [from the trial] support your allegations of misconduct against the judge." The CJC also stated in its opinion that "there is no evidence supporting allegations of any misconduct . . . on the part of [Judge Few] arising out of the events mentioned in your complaint."

Complainant now raises these same concerns again by affidavit before the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. Complainant likewise filed a Bench & Bar survey asserting many of the same allegations against Judge Few.

The Commission found Ms. Lockhart's complaint without merit and did not give it consideration during its evaluation of Judge Few. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission found that Ms. Lockhart had already raised her concerns with the CJC, which had dismissed Ms. Lockhart's allegations as without merit. As Ms. Lockhart submitted no new evidence to refute the finding of the CJC, the Commission did not take her allegations into consideration.

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 08/07/03;

(e) Judicial Conference 08/07/03;

(f) Judicial Conference 08/19/04;

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

(h) SC Circuit Judges 05/05/04;

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

(j) Annual SC Solicitors 09/26/04;

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

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

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

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

(o) Advanced Evidence 09/25/05;

(p) Teaching Evidence 11/14/05;

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

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

(s) 20th Circuit Court Judges 05/10/06;

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

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

(v) 5th Annual Civil Law Update 01/26/07."

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

"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. 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.

(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 his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "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:

"1989-1997 Private Practice, in partnership with my father,

J. Kendall Few;

1997 - 2000 Private Practice."

Judge Few reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to 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 during the last five years prior to 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, U.S. 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. The appeal of this case is listed in response to question 20;

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;

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). My Order is being sent under separate cover."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Few's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications declined to issue a report regarding Judge Few.

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."

The Commission noted that Judge Few has an outstanding reputation as a jurist. They commented on his legal intellect which has ably served him in discharging his responsibilities on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found Judge Few qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Diane S. Goodstein
Supreme Court, Seat 5

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 on the Supreme Court.

Judge Goodstein was born in 1955. She is 51 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

Mr. Ronnie Judy filed an affidavit in opposition to Judge Goodstein's candidacy. In that affidavit, Mr. Judy alleged that Judge Goodstein holds a bias against him. As evidence of this, Mr. Judy points to two separate appearances in front of Judge Goodstein both of which he feels he improperly received an adverse ruling:

(1) Case 2002-CP-18-269 in which Mr. Judy contends Judge Goodstein affirmed a magistrate's court rulin g based on perjury and/or fraudulent evidence.

(2) Case 2005-CP-18-1793 in which Mr. Judy alleges that Judge Goodstein found in his favor on a motion to dismiss but then charged him with attorney's fees despite ruling with Mr. Judy on the merits.

Judge Goodstein thoroughly responded to the issues alleged in Mr. Judy's complaint. The Commission found that Mr. Judy's affidavit lacked any merit and did not consider those allegations in its review of Judge Goodstein. The Commission further determined that Mr. Judy was attempting to re-litigate matters previously and properly decided by the Court system.

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 $462.90 in campaign expenditures for Postage ($265.20), Stationery ($150.00), and Name Tags ($47.70).

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:

"(a) 2002 S.C. Bar 17th Annual Criminal Law Update 6.0 hours;
Scientific Evidence and Experts;
(National Judicial College) 26.25 hours;
Handling Capital Cases (National Judicial College) 23.5 hours;

(b) 2003 18th Annual Criminal Law Update 1/24/03 3.00 hours;

Civil Law Update 1/24/03 3.00 hours;

Circuit Judges Conference 5/05/03 7.25 hours;

Annual Judicial Conference 8/2003;

19th Annual Criminal Law Update 1/23/04 3.0 hours;

2nd Annual Civil Law Update 1/23/04 3.0 hours;

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference 5/05/04 7.25 hours;

Annual Judicial Conference 8/19/04 7.25 hours;

Judicial Oath of Office 8/19/04 1.0 hour;

Advanced Evidence 11/15/04 - 11/18/04 23.08 hours;

(National Judicial College);

(d) 2005 Circuit Judges Conference 5/11/05 - 5/13/05 7.0 hours;

Annual Judicial Conference 8/2005;

(e) 2006 Fourth Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/06 3.0 hours;

21st Annual Criminal Law Update 1/27/06 3.0 hours;

Circuit Court Judicial Conference 5/2006 7.25 hours;

Handling Capital Cases 6/10/06 24.10 hours;

2006 Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/06 9.0 hours;

S.C. Judges and Journalist 9/28/06 3.0 hours;

(f) 2007 Fifth Annual Civil Law Update 1/26/06 1.0 hour;

22nd Annual Criminal Law Update 1/26/07 1.0 hour."

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

"(a) 2002 South Carolina Court Administration Orientation School for New Judges;

(b) 2003 SCCA Orientation School for New Judges;

(d) 2004 Group Leader National Judicial College for course Advanced Evidence;

(e) 2004 Panel Participation Women Lawyers Conference 4/30/2004;

(f) 2004 SCCA Orientation School for New Judges;

(g) 2005 SCCA Orientation School for New Judges;

(h) 2006 Part of a panel discussion for Young Lawyers Division of the SC Bar Association 1/28/06;

(i) 2006 Speaker S.C. Women Lawyers topic Ladder to Success 10/13/06;

(j) 2006 Speaker at Worker's Compensation Convention;

(k) 2007 Instruction Magistrates' School Presentation Running of the Court 3/28/07;

(l) 2007 Part of a panel discussion Jewish Historical Society 4/28/07."

Judge Goodstein reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.

(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 her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

(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."

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

"(a) civil: 50%;

(b) criminal: 10%;

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

"(a) jury: 30%;

(b) non-jury: 70%."

Judge Goodstein provided that prior to 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 Plaintiff 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) Blackburn and Co., Inc. v. Dudley and KTM, 298 S.C. 538, 381 S.E.2d 918, 1989.

As is evident above these appeals were concluded many many years ago. Since then I have been on the bench, my husband has merged our former firm then left that firm and with the growth of our family business his law practice has had to become very limited. Resultantly, I have been unable to locate any of the briefs."

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. 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 - cite: This was a death penalty case for which many pre-trial orders were issued, the most significant being the order to suppress defendant's confession. This matter was affirmed;

(b) Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections - Department of Convictions cite;

(d) Simmons v. City of Charleston, 562 SE2nd 476;

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

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Goodstein's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Goodstein to be a "very eminently qualified and a most highly regarded candidate for the Supreme Court."

Judge Goodstein is married to Arnold Samuel Goodstein. 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) Summerville Debutante Club;

(b) Circuit Judges Advisory Committee Member;

The Commission noted that Judge Goodstein has an exceptional reputation as a jurist and is also known to be a hardworking judge with a passion for her job. They commented that Judge Goodstein routinely handles the more complicated cases that come before the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found Judge Goodstein qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

J. Mark Hayes II
Supreme Court, Seat 5

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Hayes was born in 1958. He is 48 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 made approximately $88.36 in campaign expenditures on stationery items.

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) Fifth Annual Civil Law Update 1/26/07;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(k) General Jurisdiction 10/11/04;

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

(m) Judicial Conference 8/19/04;

(n) 2004 SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/5/04;

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

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

(q) Judicial Conference 8/21/03;

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

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

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

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

(v) Auto Torts XXV 12/6-7/02;

(w) Litigating Nursing Home Cases 4/20/01."

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

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

(b) 2005: S.C. Budget and Control Board/Insurance Reserve Fund Law Enforcement Defense Counsel Seminar. Topic: Legislative Update; Med/mal reform legislation;

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

(e) 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 his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

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

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

(b) Chairman - Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. 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 during the five years prior to 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 during the five years prior to 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 during the five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a) jury: 5%;

(b) non-jury: 50%."

Judge Hayes provided that prior to 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;

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 Durham 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' 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;

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 (attached) supplemented my order of February 10, 2005 (also attached). 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."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Hayes' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found that Judge Hayes meets the qualifications as set forth in the evaluative criteria. The interviews and other sources utilized by the Committee led them to determine that Judge Hayes is well qualified for the position he seeks.

Judge Hayes is not married. He does not have any 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 noted that Judge Hayes is a hard worker and dedicated to improving the administration of justice and projects promoting the legal system through his service on state and national legal committees. They commented that he is a well-respected judge on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found Judge Hayes qualified for election to the Supreme Court.

Kaye G. Hearn
Supreme Court, Seat 5

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 on the Supreme Court.

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 by Mr. Marion Driggers who contended that Judge Hearn, as part of a three judge panel, failed to correctly apply a statute in a lease dispute. Judge Hearn thoroughly responded to these allegations and the Commission determined 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 Commission impressed upon Mr. Driggers that he had not selected the appropriate forum for his complaint and that the Commission does not and will not sit in judgment of a judicial opinion. Mr. Driggers stated that he had no evidence, other than this Court opinion, that spoke to the character or fitness of Judge Hearn.

The second affidavit was filed by Ms. Jara Gobbi. Ms. Gobbi contended that Judge Hearn had a social relationship with a lawyer from Conway. Ms. Gobbi contended that this relationship gave rise to the appearance of impropriety on the part of Judge Hearn and that she felt she had received adverse rulings from the Court of Appeals and lower trial courts as a result of Judge Hearn's friendship with this attorney.

Mr. Ken Richstad, Clerk of the S.C. Court of Appeals submitted a letter to the Commission, which was made a part of the public hearing record, detailing that Judge Hearn voluntarily did not hear any cases involving the lawyer in question. In addition, Mr. Richstad provided information that Judge Hearn had never issued an order on the merits of any of the more than three dozen cases Ms. Gobbi has before the Court of Appeals.

The Commission found that Ms. Gobbi's complaint was without merit and did not give it consideration during its evaluation of Judge Hearn. Further, the Commission found that Judge Hearn had taken all of the appropriate steps to comply with the Judicial Cannons.

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 that she has made $235.96 in campaign expenditures for postage ($215.96) and legislative manuals ($20.00).

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:

"2002:

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap - presenter) - 5-15-02;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-02;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-02;

Family Court Bench/Bar (presenter) - 12-6-02.

2003:

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

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-03;

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

Family Court Bench/Bar (presenter) - 12-5-03.

2004:

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

Using Electronic Evidence in Civil Litigation (presenter) - 7-15-04;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-04;

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

Wofford and the Law (presenter) - 9-25-04;

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

South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar (presenter) - 12-3-04.

2005:

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

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-06;

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

South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar (presenter) - 12-12-05.

2006:

Trial & Appellate Advocacy (SC Bar Convention - presenter) - 1-28-06;

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

S.C. Family Court Summit (presenter) - 7-06;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-06;

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

AutoTorts (presenter) - 12-2-06."

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, C olumbia, 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;

Using Electronic Evidence in Civil Litigation, July 15, 2004;

Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners, Columbia, S.C., Sept. 24, 2004;
(vvv) Wofford and the Law, Panel Leader for Legal Symposium Spartanburg, S.C., Sept. 25, 2004;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 editors (S.C. Bar CLE 2004), Author, '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), Author, 'Taking Advantage of 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 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 during the last five years prior to 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 during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a) civil: 45%;

(b) criminal: 10%;

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

"(a) jury: 40%;

(b) non-jury: 60%."

Judge Hearn provided that prior to 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."

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."

(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 Committee on Judicial Qualifications reported Judge Hearn would be "an asset to the Court, has an exceptional demeanor, and has great deal of enthusiasm and commitment and is well qualified for the position of Associate Justice for the Supreme Court Seat 5. As a result of its investigation and interview with Judge Hearn, the Committee recommends this candidate without reservation."

Judge Hearn is married to George M. Hearn, Jr. 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."

The Commission noted Judge Hearn to be an exceptional member and leader on the Court of Appeals. They commented on her outstanding demeanor on the bench, as well as her intellectual ability. The Commission found Judge Hearn to be qualified and nominated for election to the Supreme Court.

A. Eugene Morehead III
Supreme Court, Seat 5

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 on the Supreme Court.

Judge Morehead was born in 1946. He is 60 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Morehead provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.

(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Morehead reported that he has made $109.84 in campaign expenditures for "Stationery $18.36, Envelopes $27.52 (2/13/07), Postage $63.96 (2/26/07) for a total of $109.84."

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:

"(a) Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative

(b) Purposes in Family Court 02/15/07;

01/26/07;

(d) South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference 12/01/06;

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

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

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

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

(i) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Trial Lawyers Convention 08/03/06;

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

(k) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention

01/27/06;

(l) Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar on

Procedure and Substantive Law 12/09/05;

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

(n) Annual South Carolina Solicitor's Association Conference

09/25/05;

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

(p) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial

Lawyers Convention 08/04/05;

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

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

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

(t) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention

01/21/05;

(u) Seminar for Chief Administrative Family Court Judges

12/10/04;

(v) Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar on

Procedure and Substantive Law 12/08/04;

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

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

(y) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial

Lawyers Convention 08/05/04;

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

(aa) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention

01/23/04;

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

(cc) Annual South Carolina Solicitor's Association Conference

09/28/03;

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

(ee) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial

Lawyers Convention 08/07/03;

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

(gg) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Bar Convention

01/24/03;

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

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

(jj) Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial

Lawyers Convention 08/01/02;

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

(ll) 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, and 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 Cou rt 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) Presently organizing the educational component for the Annual Family Court Judges Conference scheduled to be held in April, 2007, and also in charge of and organizing the entire three-day school for the new Family Court Judges recently elected to be held in July, 2007."

Judge Morehead reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Morehead was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5) Reputation:

Judge Morehead reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "Unknown."

Judge Morehead reported the following military service:

"Spent two years on active duty as an officer in the United States Army from June, 1968, through May, 1970, obtaining the rank of First Lieutenant. 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:

"Joined the Law Firm of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough in Columbia, South Carolina, as an Associate in 1973 and remained there for three years practicing in all courts in this state with a general focus on defense litigation surrounding personal and property injuries, products liability and Worker's Compensation.

In 1976 moved to Florence, South Carolina, and became a Partner in the Law Firm of Swearingen and Morehead, remaining there until June, 1985. Had a general practice doing both plaintiff' s and defense litigation in state Civil Court, Federal Court and Family Court.

Was elected a Family Court Judge for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit on April10, 1985, and began serving on June 19, 1985. Served continuously until Chief Justice Ernest Finney appointed me to serve on the Court of Appeals after Chief Judge William Howell retired until his successor was elected. Served from January, 2000, until July 1, 2000, and then returned to the Family Court Bench. Also in March, 2003, due to the illness of Judge Carol Connor, Chief Justice Jean Toal appointed me to serve on the Court of Appeals for a one-month term. "

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

"(a) federal: 5 to 10 times per year;

(b) state: 150 to 175 times per year;

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

"(a) civil: 35%;

(b) criminal: 10%;

(d) other: 15%."

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

"(a) jury: 30 to 35%;

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

Judge Morehead provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as 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, 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."

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 an unsuccessful candidacy:

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

(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 Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Morehead to be "very impressive, studious, very committed to the values of the Court and is qualified for the position of associate justice." As a result of its investigation and interview with Judge Morehead, the Committee recommended this candidate without reservation.

Judge Morehead is married to Elaine Dempsey Morehead. He has two children.

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

"(a) Formerly member of Richland County Bar Association from 1973 to 1976, American Judicature Society, The South Carolina Defense Attorneys Association and the American Bar Association;

(b) Presently a member of the Florence County Bar Association and the South Carolina Bar Association;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) Presently serving as Chairperson of the Family Court Judges' Advisory Committee to the Chief Justice."

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

"(a) Member of the American Legion serving on local, district and state committees;

(b) American Legion Palmetto Boys State for the past 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. "

The Commission noted that Judge Morehead is known as a very studious judge with a good judicial temperament. They commented on his extensive contributions to the public through his service to his community and on the Family Court bench. The Commission found Judge Morehead qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

H. Bruce Williams
Supreme Court, Seat 5

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Williams meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Supreme Court.

Judge Williams was born in 1956 . He is 51 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Williams 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 Williams.

Judge Williams 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 Williams reported that he has made $193.96 in campaign expenditures for: "Postage $63.96, Stationery $30.00, and Typing $100.00."

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

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

"(a) Annual Judicial Conference 8/02 - 8/06;

(b) Essential Skills for the Appellate Judge 7/1/06;

(d) Civil Law Update 1/27/06;

(e) Criminal Law Update 1/27/06;

(f) Family Court Judges Conference 4/02 - 4/06;

(g) Mini Summit on Justice for Children 8/22/06;

(h) Hot Tips for Domestic Law Practitioners 9/22/06;

(i) Family Court Bench and Bar 12/01/06;

(j) New Appellate Judge Conference 7/10/05;

(k) Criminal Law Update 1/21/05;

(l) Trial and Appellate Advocacy 1/22/05;

(m) Hot Tips For Domestic Law Practitioners 9/23/05;

(n) Annual Judicial Symposium 7/15/05;

(o) S.C. Defense Lawyers Annual Meeting 11/05 - 11/06;

(p) S.C. Bar Family Law Section 1/23/04;

(q) Family Court Judges Conference 4/28/04;

(r) Revised Lawyers Oath Seminar 8/27/04;

(s) Wofford and the Law 9/24/04;

(t) Annual Solicitors Conference 9/26/04;

(u) S.C. Bar Family Law 1/24/03;

(v) S.C. Trial Lawyers Conference 8/7/03;

(w) Annual Solicitors Conference 9/28/03;

(x) Family Law JCLE 12/5/03;

(y) National Judicial College/Current Issues 2/02;

(z) S.C. Bar Family Law 1/24/02;

(aa) S.C. Trial Lawyers Conference 8/7/03;

(bb) Annual Solicitors Conference 9/23/08;

(cc) Family Law JCLE."

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

"(a) I have lectured at the S.C. Bar Program 'Bridge the Gap' for new lawyers;

(b) I have lectured to University of South Carolina Law School classes relating to the following topics: alternative sentencing/drug courts, abuse and neglect cases, domestic relations;

(c) I lectured to undergraduate and graduate level classes at the University of South Carolina regarding juvenile crime and drug courts;

(d) I had the opportunity to participate as a group leader in drug court training for new courts in a program sponsored by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals;

(e) I have made presentations to lawyers attending the Annual SC Bar meeting in the area of domestic relations;

(f) I have made numerous presentations at SC Solicitors' annual conferences relating to juveniles including case law updates, drug courts, and civility in the courts;

(g) I had the opportunity to speak at locally sponsored CLE events regarding abuse and neglect cases and guardian ad litem training."

Judge Williams reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Williams 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 Williams reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

(6) Physical Health:

Judge Williams appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7) Mental Stability:

Judge Williams appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8) Experience:

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

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

"1982 - 1995 General practice of law with primary emphasis on family law and personal injury law;

- Scott, Mathews, and Williams 1982 - 1991;

- Trotter and Williams 1991 - 1995;

1991 - 1995 Part-time municipal judge for Irmo, South Carolina;

1995 - 2004 Judge, South Carolina Family Court;

2004 - present Judge, South Carolina Court of Appeals."

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

"(a) federal: low;

(b) state: high."

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

"(a) civil: 30%;

(b) criminal: 5%;

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

"(a) jury: 5%;

(b) non-jury: 95%."

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

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

"(a) Melvin v. Melvin - Long term marriage involving issues of contested divorce and equitable distribution of military retirement;

(b) Inman v. Inman - A custody case involving a mother who moved out of state;

(c) Oswald v. Oswald - A contested custody case involving child support, visitation, equitable distribution and attorneys' fees;

(d) Jackson v. Jackson - A domestic case seeking custody for the mother who had given up custody and visitation with her children. Custody was obtained for the mother;

(e) Bullard v. Ehrhardt - 324 S.E.2d 61, 283 S.C. 557 (1984). This case established the duty of a store owner to invitees for criminal acts of third parties in negligence actions."

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

"(a) Marvin E. Davis v. Bernice H. Davis;

(b) Oyler v. Oyler - 358 S.E.2d 170, 293 S.C. 4 (S.C. App. 1987) participation limited to responsibility for oral argument and assisting in writing brief;

(d) Francis June Rawl v. Roy Edwin Rawl Sr. - Participation limited to oral argument."

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

"(a) Assistant Town Judge, Irmo, SC: October 1991 - June 6, 1995: Appointed by Town Council; jurisdiction limited to magistrate level criminal and traffic offenses. Duties included setting bonds for criminal defendants;

(b) S.C. Family Court Judge, Fifth Circuit, Richland County, Seat # 1; June 1995 - June 2004. Jurisdiction includes, but is not limited to, divorce, adoption, abuse and neglect cases, and juveniles. I have presided over the Richland County Juvenile Drug court since inception in 1997;

(d) I was appointed as a special Circuit Judge to preside over the Richland County Adult Drug Court. "

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

"(a) Hooper v. Rockwell, et al. - 573 S.E.2d 358, 334 S.C. 281 (1999);

(b) Truitt v. Truitt - 603 S.E.2d 867, 361 S.C. 272 (Ct. App. 2004);

(d) State v. Funderburk - 625 S.E.2d 248, 367 S.C. 236 (Ct. App. 2006);

(e) Richardson v. Hawkins - 634 S.E.2d 9, 370 S.C. 125 (Ct. App. 2006)."

Judge Williams further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) In 1994, I was a candidate for Family Court Judge. I was found qualified by the S.C. Bar and Judicial Merit Selection Commission. I withdrew prior to the election.

(b) In 2003, I was found qualified by the S.C. Bar in my effort to serve on the S.C. Court of Appeals. I was found qualified and nominated by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. Another candidate won the election."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Williams's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Williams to be a "very imminently qualified and an outstanding and most highly regarded candidate, who would honorably serve on the Supreme Court bench."

Judge Williams is married to Sharon Childers Williams. He has two children.

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

"(a) S.C. Bar, 1982 - present;

(b) Richland County Bar, 1982 - present; Family Law Chairman 1993; Family Law Committee, 1991 -1993;

(c) S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges, 1995 - 2004; President, 1999 - 2000; President-elect, 1998 - 1999; Secretary-Treasurer, 1997 - 1998;

(d) S.C. Association of Drug Court Professionals; President 2000 - 2001, Board Member, 2006 - present."

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

"(a) Received the 'Program Achievement Award' at the 1198 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime for initiating and developing the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court;

(b) Columbia Kiwanis Club - President, 1989 - 1990; Board of Directors, 1987 - 1991 and 1994 - 1995; Key Club and Keywanettes - Advisor, 1983 -1996;

(c) The Country Club - Wildewood and Woodcreek Farms; Chairman of the Golf Committee, 2005 - 2006; committee member, 2003 - 2004;

(d) Tarantella;

(e) Palmetto Club."

The Commission noted Judge Williams' integrity, compassion, and good judicial temperament. They commented that even though he is ably serving on the Court of Appeals he still maintains his outstanding work with the Richland County Drug Court. The Commission found Judge Williams qualified and nominated him for election to the Supreme Court.

Robert S. Armstrong
Court of Appeals, Seat 7

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 on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Armstrong was born in 1956. He is 50 years old and is a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina. Judge Armstrong provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.

(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Judge Armstrong demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts, 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:

"(a) Annual Judicial Conference August 2001 - 2006;

(b) Annual Family Court Judges Conference April/May 2001 - 2006;

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

(e) South Carolina Trial Lawyers

Annual Convention August 2001 - 2006;

(f) National Judicial College April 22, 2003 -

April 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 topics 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."

Judge Armstrong reported that he has published the following:

"'Up From the Lowcountry, Who is this New Kid on the Block?' Fall Issue, 1993, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Bulletin. This was an article on the Honorable William T. Howell after his election as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals."

(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Armstrong was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5) Reputation:

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

Judge Armstrong reported 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, Sole practitioner with primary emphasis on family, criminal, and personal injury cases."

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

"(a) civil: 15%;

(b) criminal: 65%;

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

"(a) jury: 75%;

(b) non-jury: 25%."

Judge Armstrong provided that prior to 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; 95DR-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 that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

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

"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) Arnal v. Arnal, 609 S.E.2d 821 (Ct. App. 2005); Supreme Court, Opinion Number 26215, filed October 23, 2006;

(e) Marquez v. Caudill, et.al., 2004-DR-26-347."

Judge Armstrong further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I ran unsuccessfully for At-Large Seats on the Circuit Court in February 1994, February 1996, and May 1996. I also ran for the Court of Appeals in 2004. I was found qualified, but not nominated."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Armstrong's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications 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 step-children.

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar;

(b) Beaufort County Bar."

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

"(a) Former member of the University Club;

(b) Former member of the Hampton County Country Club."

The Commission noted that Judge Armstrong is a solid and personable Family Court judge. They commented that he is considered a well regarded jurist who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals. The Commission found Judge Armstrong qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Timothy L. Brown
Court of Appeals, Seat 7

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

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

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

(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Brown reported that he has spent $356.00 for campaign expenditures as follows: $117 for stamps, $139 stationery and envelopes, and $100 for 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) S.C. 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) S.C. 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) S.C. 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) S.C. 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."

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;

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

(k) Lectures for Charleston & Greenville County Bars and American Trial Lawyers Association;

(l) New Judges School;

(m) Course on Custody Law;

(n) Course on Contempt Law."

Judge Brown reported that he has published the following:

"(a) Terminating Parental Rights;

(b) 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);

(c) The Law of Contempt published by the South Carolina Bar and provided to all the Circuit Court Judges and part of the Family Court Judges Bench Book. (August, 2006); (Note: The material covers many topics such as in personam jurisdiction, procedure rules, constitutional issues, all of which apply to all courts;

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

Judge Brown reported he also has published the material relating to the law related courses he taught. He noted that this material is available through the S.C. Bar publications.

(4) Character:

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

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

(5) Reputation:

Judge Brown reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. "I am a judge now and have no rating. I was a solo practitioner and never sought a rating as a lawyer."

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:

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

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

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

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

"(a) federal: 15%;

(b) state: 85%."

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

"(a) civil: 35%;

(b) criminal: 15%;

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

"(a) jury: 15% (much higher if cases not settled);

(b) non-jury: 85%."

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

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

"(a) In answering this question I have attempted to understand the meaning of 'significant' and to diversify the type of cases. A case may have produced no money or precedent yet have been significant.

For example, early in my legal career I raised the question of equal protection for indigent children. 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) (I no longer have my brief);

(b) Prior to the adoption of Sec. 19-1-180 of the South Carolina Code of Laws 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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. Williams, 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). I no longer have a copy of the brief. 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 seven civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Greenville County DSS v. Maxine Allen & Ralph M. Whitworth, Unpublished Opinion No. 93-UP-130 (Copy enclosed) (Respondent). The Solicitor's office signed off on my brief. Also, I did the oral argument. This case was important 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.
Note: I've included two (2) extra briefs because of not completing the case where the child died or the one after I was elected. I attempted to spread out the supplied material over time and where representing both Appellants and Respondents. I have handled a number of other appeals if more are needed."

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

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

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

"Yes, 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 and 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.; 2006-UP-271;

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

Judge Brown further commented that "since only two cases have been appealed, the orders I have submitted are not in my opinion 'significant'; however, they are orders which in some instances contain interesting legal points and other instances contain matters which come before judges with great regularity. Of the two (2) decisions appealed both were affirmed, and only one of which may have been considered of any importance. That decision defined the new term 'abandonment' as it relates to a termination of parental rights as being consistent with the manner in which the old term was used. See case of SCDSS v. Michael Truitt, Sandra Ivester, et al.; 361 SC 272, 603 S.E.2d 867 (Ct. App. 2004). The other appealed case was affirmed in an Unpublished Opinion; 06-UP-271.

Also, I believed it appropriate to use orders which I drafted or in one above case drafted the major portions. Otherwise the committee is reviewing examples of attorneys' legal writing not the judges."

Judge Brown reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"Prior to being elected I ran for family court one (1) time (1996) withdrawing and another time (1996/1997) losing by one (1) vote. I ran for the Court of Appeals in 2006. I was found qualified but not recommended/reported out."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Brown's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

In the Fall of 2006, the Upstate Citizens Committee for Judicial Qualifications found Judge Brown to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Brown "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

Judge Brown is married to Sharon 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."

Judge Brown further reported his service on a national committee: "The United States Senate funded through the United States District Attorney's Office a study on restorative justice. We met in Washington, Miami and at the District Attorney's Center in Columbia. The study focused on the payment of restitution for committed crimes, rehabilitation, continued drug use and recidivism. I spearheaded the attempts to convert these measurements from an existing subjective criteria to a series of non-discretionary questions which could be mathematically quantified. This would allow an objective for state-to-state comparison. I was chosen as the judicial member representing the State of South Carolina. This organization was called APRI."

The Commission noted Judge Brown to be a thoughtful judge with a good judicial temperament which would be an asset on the Court of Appeals. They commented on his strong intellect and scholarly writing. The Commission found him qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Robert N. Jenkins, Sr.
Court of Appeals, Seat 7

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

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

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

(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Jenkins reported that he has made approximately $250 in campaign expenditures for postal stamps and printing of campaign letters of announcements.

Judge Jenkins testified he has not:

(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

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

(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

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

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

"(a) Family Law Part - I -Taxes: The 01/25/02;

(b) Family Law Section II - Taxes: The 01/25/02;

(d) 2002 Annual Convention 08/01/02;

(e) Judicial Conference 08/22/02;

(f) Family Law Part - I 01/24/03;

(g) Family Law Part - II 01/24/03;

(h) Family Court Judges Conference 04/30/03;

(i) 66th Annual Conference 07/20/03;

(j) 2003 Annual Conference 08/07/03;

(k) Judicial Conference 08/21/03;

(l) Family Law Section Meeting 01/23/04;

(m) Family Court Judges Conference 04/28/04;

(n) Judicial Conference 08/19/04;

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

(p) Advance Family Law 10/24/04;

(q) Family Law Section 01/21/05;

(r) 2005 Family Court Judges 04/27/05;

(s) 68th Annual Conference Update 7/17-20/05;

(t) 2005 Annual Judicial Conference 08/24/05;

(u) South Carolina Family Court Bench 12/02/05;

(v) Family Law Section 01/26/06;

(w) Family Court Judges Conference 04/26/06;

(x) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 08/23/06;

(y) South Carolina Family Court Bench 12/01/06."

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

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

Judge Jenkins reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4) Character:

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

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

(5) Reputation:

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

Judge Jenkins reported the following military service:

"8/6 - Reg. Air Force, E-5 (Staff Sergeant) AFXXXXXXXX/SSN

XXX-XX-XXXX. In active reserve - 6/69 thru 8/72; Honorable Discharge: 8/72."

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

"(a) 1979-1996 - Director, Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc.;

Appointed through selection by quasi-public Board of Directors;

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

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

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

(6) Physical Health:

Judge Jenkins appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7) Mental Stability:

Judge Jenkins appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8) Experience:

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

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

"1976-79: Engaged in the active practice of law as a Staff Attorney/Managing Attorney with Legal Services Agency headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina (NLAP, Inc.).

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

In addition, coordinated the attorneys' weekly office schedule for client intake and served as the office liaison with the local courts. The office yearly caseload exceeded 5,000 cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"(a) federal: Not frequent;

(b) state: Frequent."

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

"(a) civil: 65%;

(b) criminal: 0%;

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

"(a) jury: 2%;

(b) non-jury: 98%."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Family Court Judge Seat #5 in the Thirteenth (13th) Judicial Circuit
1996 - Present. I am now serving as a Circuit Family Court Judge for the 13th Judicial Circuit. My current term is through June 2008. This is a court of limited jurisdiction by statute covering marital litigation, juvenile cases, child dependency cases and all other domestic relations issues."

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

"(a) Rourk v. Rourk 95-DR-95-08-1178 - Charleston. T.P.R. (Private Action) (Termination of Parental Rights). The decision disallows termination based on application of S.C. law;

(b) Purdy v. Purdy (578 S.E.2d. 30, 356 S.C.400 (S.C. App. 2003) - Beaufort. This case involves the issue of whether the Court erred in refusing to terminate the child support obligation of a father where the father claims that his daughter, although less than seventeen, was an emancipated child by other circumstances. The appeals court affirmed;

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

(d) SCDSS v. Evans, et. al. - Greenville 95-DR-23-5300, 97-DR-23-1073. T.P.R. (Public Action) (Termination of Parental Rights). The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application;

(e) SCDSS v. Sturkey, et. al. - Greenville 99-DR-23-258. T.P.R. (Public Action) (Termination of Parental Rights). The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application. S.C. Court of Appeals 4/22/99 - Opinion #99 - affirms. See Attachment 23(e). UP-258."

Judge Jenkins reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) Withdrew after qualified and nominated for Seat #4, S.C. Court of Appeals - 2007;

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

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Jenkins' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

In the Fall of 2006, the Upstate Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Jenkins to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Jenkins "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

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

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

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

(e) Greenville Bar Association."

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

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

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

(e) Greenville Bar Association."

The Commission noted Judge Jenkins' extensive public service through his work with Legal Services and now as a judge on the Family Court. They commented that Judge Jenkins is a very caring judge and would offer a diverse legal background to the Court of Appeals. The Commission found him qualified for election to the Court of Appeals.

J. Rene' Josey
Court of Appeals, Seat 7

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

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

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

(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Mr. Josey reported that he has made $129.78 in campaign expenditures for "printing and postage."

Mr. Josey testified he has not:

(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

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

(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Josey described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

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

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

5/17/02 Time Mastery for Lawyers (# 220759);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2/25/06 Changes to South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (# 261005IH);

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

12/13/06 Metadata in Electronic Documents (# 264116IH)."

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

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

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

After joining the firm of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney in March of 2001, I directed the Attorney Development program for new associates 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.
Within the past five years, I have spoken on Ethics at the Florence County Bar Association's Annual Ethics CLE (10/26/01) and the Federal Bar Association's CLE in conjunction with the South Carolina Bar (9/6/02)."

Mr. Josey reported that he has published the following:

"While I was in law school at the University of South Carolina, I published the following two articles in the South Carolina Law Review:

(a) An Analysis of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. - Are Punitive Damages and Exclusive Federal Regulation Consistent? 36 S.C.L. Rev. 689 (1985).

(b) Annual Survey of South Carolina Law (Labor and Employment Section), 36 S.C.L. Rev. 179 (1984).

Employment Discrimination and Title VII: Appropriate Conceptual

Frameworks for Different Claims.

Fetal Vulnerability Plan: Disparate Treatment Absent Intent.

Title VII and The Sexually Offensive Work Environment: A Warranty of Workability.

Wildcat Strikes and Local Union Liability.

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

(4) Character:

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

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

(5) Reputation:

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

Mr. Josey reported that he has held the following public office:

"From May 1996 through February 2001 I served as the United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina. I was appointed by the President and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. Because this was a federal office, I filed federal ethics reports; as I recall, these were all filed in a timely manner and no penalties imposed.
In March of 2001, I was appointed by Florence City Council to serve as a commissioner on the Florence Civic Center Commission - the governing body for the regional auditorium/arena located in Florence. I still serve on that commission and was elected chairman by my fellow commissioners in July of 2002. Our commissioners do not serve as the chief administrative officer of this commission; this function is filled by an independent contractor. See S.C. Code Section 8-13-1110(B)(6) (requiring such chief administrative officer to file Economic Interest Report with State Ethics Commission)."

(6) Physical Health:

Mr. Josey appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7) Mental Stability:

Mr. Josey appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8) Experience:

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

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

"From August of 1985 through August of 1987, I was a law clerk to the Honorable C. Weston Houck, United States District Court Judge for the District of South Carolina.

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

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

In February 1996, I was recommended by United States Senator Ernest F. Hollings to be the United States Attorney for South Carolina. Following the vetting process, I was formally nominated by the President. Pending confirmation by the United States Senate, I was appointed by the United States Attorney General and United States District Court as an interim United States Attorney on 17 May 1996 and I closed my private practice.

On the motion of Senator Strom Thurmond, my nomination was quickly forwarded out of the Judiciary Committee. 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. During my service I also spent considerable time working on communication and coordination with local law enforcement and local prosecutors whom I grew to respect very much.

At the conclusion of my term as United States Attorney, I resigned (24 February 2001) to aide the transition for the new administration. I chose to join the law firm of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney working primarily from its Florence office. I began my work with the firm in March of 2001.

While I work on the business and commercial litigation team, my practice has again become quite diverse including both criminal and civil matters. The civil matters have included both tort actions and contract actions. I have worked for both plaintiffs and defendants. I have worked on both state criminal matters in several circuits and federal criminal matters."

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

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

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

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

"(a) civil: 65%;

(b) criminal: 30%;

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 of my jury matters are ended without trial;

(b) non-jury: 35%."

Mr. Josey provided that he has served "[a]bout equally in each role [sole counsel, chief counsel, or associate counsel] over the past 5 years."

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.;

I represented the defendant, Jennifer Rose, who was charged along with the other occupants of a motor vehicle with violation of the federal narcotics laws. All of the vehicle's occupants were natives of Jamaica. The case was significant because I was able to convince the District Court to direct a verdict of acquittal for Ms. Rose on the basis that the government had failed to provide sufficient proof that she was aware of the presence of illegal narcotics in the automobile. The matter was tried before the Honorable Henry C. Morgan, United States District Judge (visiting the District of South Carolina);

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was an importer's action in United States District Court to recover a customs penalty assessed on an inaccurate factual basis. This case is significant because it apparently represents the first time an importer has successfully invoked the jurisdiction of a District Court to obtain judicial review of a customs penalty. I represented the importer, Trayco, Inc.

This matter was tried before the Honorable C. Weston Houck, United States District Judge, and subsequently hear d 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));

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Josey 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) Last Fall (2006), I was a candidate for the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat #4, and was found qualified, but not nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Committee."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Josey's temperament would be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found that Mr. Josey is "very studious, analytical and very personable and is qualified for the position of Justice of the Court of Appeals."

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 2007;

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 appointed 2001, 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."

Mr. Josey further reported that this "year (2007) I have also been listed in the Best Lawyers in America (published by Woodward/White) for Appellate Law."

The Commission noted Mr. Josey to be very knowledgeable and articulate attorney which would assist him on the Court of Appeals. The Commission commented on Mr. Josey's broad legal experience through his service as a United States Attorney for South Carolina as well as his years of practice as a general practitioner and also with a large law firm in this State. The Commission found Mr. Josey qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

Aphrodite Konduros
Court of Appeals, Seat 7

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 on the Court of Appeals.

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 approximately $50.00 in campaign expenditures for a ream of paper and a roll of stamps.

Judge Konduros testified she has not:

(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

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:

"2002

Orientation School for New Judges 7/8/02;

2002 Annual SCTLA Convention 8/1/02;

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

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;

2004

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;

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;

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;

2007
Family Law Section 1/26/07."

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:
"'Chief of the Catawbas', Sandlapper Magazine, Summer Issue, 1999."

(4) Character:

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

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

(5) Reputation:

Judge Konduros reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

(6) Physical Health:

Judge Konduros appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7) Mental Stability:

Judge Konduros appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8) Experience:

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

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

"1984-85 Weinberg, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, 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.

1987-89 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.

1989-94 SC 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.

1994-97 SC 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 SC 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 during the five years prior to 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 during the five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a) civil: 6%;

(b) criminal: 4%;

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

"(a) jury: 5%;

(b) non-jury: 95%."

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

The following is Judge Konduros' 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 SC 312; 372 SE 2d 120 (Ct. App. 1988);

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

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 SC Supreme Court on State v. Luke Traylor 360 SC 74; 600 SE2d 523 (S.Ct. 2004)."

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

"Currently a Family Court Judge in the Thirteenth Circuit, Elected February 6, 2002, and February 4, 2004 to expire June 30, 2010. Jurisdiction is set forth in 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 an unsuccessful candidacy:

"Ran unsuccessfully for S.C. Court of Appeals, Seat 3, to which the Honorable Paula Thomas was elected on February 7, 2007."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Konduros' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

In the Fall of 2006, the Upstate Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Konduros to be competent in each respect of the evaluative criteria. The Committee reported that Judge Konduros "meets and exceeds the criteria of the evaluative process."

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

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

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

(b) Greenville County Bar 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."

Judge Konduros further reported that she received the following awards during her current judgeship:

(a) S.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Award of Excellence 2005;

(b) The S.C. Fatherhood Practitioners Network, Inc. 2005 Statewide Fatherhood Award."

The Commission noted that Judge Konduros is a well prepared, dynamic, and very talented judge who would be an asset to the Court of Appeals. They commented that she was known as a great leader during law school and her leadership skills are also evidenced currently on the Family Court bench. The Commission found Judge Konduros qualified and nominated her for election to the Court of Appeals.

Daniel F. Pieper
Court of Appeals, Seat 7

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Pieper was born in 1961. He is 45 years old and a resident of Hanahan, South Carolina. Judge Pieper provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.

(2) Ethical Fitness:

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

Judge Pieper 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 Pieper reported that he has made $80 in campaign expenditures as follows: postage $60, envelopes $10 and paper $10.

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

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

"(a) Annual Judicial Conference in August;

(b) S.C. Bar Civil and Criminal Update in January of each year;

(d) Trial Lawyers conferences in August and November at times."

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

"I have lectured on the law before the Masters-in-Equity regarding civil procedure. I also have made presentations to the Magistrates and Municipal Judges on Judicial Ethics. I prepare a 'Tips from the Bench' seminar every other year for the SC Bar that covers every level of court in SC. In addition, I am an adjunct professor of law at the Charleston School of Law. I have taught courses in Criminal Law and Equity. I have also spoken on Ethics during the law school's professionalism series."

Judge Pieper reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Pieper 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 Pieper reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

(6) Physical Health:

Judge Pieper appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7) Mental Stability:

Judge Pieper appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8) Experience:

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

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

"(a) March 1985 - August 1985; Lawclerk, U.S. District Court, for United States Magistrate Judge Robert Carr. I was responsible for researching the law and writing reports and recommendations for disposition of various cases such as employment and civil rights cases, social security, habeas corpus and other prisoner litigation, and all other civil cases referred to the office. Also, I attended and prepared for all criminal proceedings before Judge Carr. In August, I left to attend N.Y.U.;

(b) Attorney - In Summer 1986. For a short period after I returned from N.Y.U., I worked as an attorney with the Joye law firm handling foreclosures, estate planning and civil matters;

(c) Fall 1986 - Fall 1988; Senior Lawclerk, U.S. District Court for Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. I worked on a wide variety of civil and criminal matters involving issues of statutory and constitutional law, including habeas corpus review of decisions of the S.C. Supreme Court. Essentially, I received training and exposure to all aspects of trial, including complex litigation;

(d) Private Practice - August 1988 - December 1990. During part of this time, I was associated with a lawyer under the name of Pieper & Stokes (Mark); six months thereafter, we associated with another lawyer (Kinard) but chose to operate as separate entities. Character of practice - real estate, probate, estate planning and general civil matters;

(e) Counsel, U.S. District Court, Summer 1990 - December 1990. Career Clerk December 1990 - Summer 1993; part-time Summer 1993 - Summer 1995; returned to U.S. District Court at request of Judge Blatt, because of my class action experience, to assist with the complicated bankruptcy class action for Patriots Point. After the case was completed, I was asked to stay in a career position. [During the first six months of this period, I was still in private practice time above because I was serving in a special 'of counsel' sort of position to the Court for the bankruptcy proceedings]. From Summer 1993 - Summer 1995, I assisted the court one day a week since I was appointed Master-in-Equity;

(f) April 1989 - October 1991. Part-time Berkeley County Magistrate (I worked at night). Presided over all cases assigned to my office. Eventually, I was appointed Chief Magistrate;

(g) June 1993 - June 1996; Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge. Duties - I presided over all circuit court nonjury trials and proceedings referred to my office for disposition; in addition, as Special Circuit Judge, I presided over most pretrial proceedings and motions in civil jury and non-jury cases; minor settlements; civil or criminal appeals from magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as judicial review of state agency cases such as workers' compensation appeals, and grand jury proceedings. I gained a wide variety of circuit court judicial experience;

(h) June 1996 - present. Resident Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit. Preside over all civil and criminal matters and appeals within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. I have also been assigned as an Acting Supreme Court Justice. I have almost completed my eleventh year as circuit judge."

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

"(a) federal: 0%;

(b) state: 0%;"

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

"(a) civil: 90%;

(b) criminal: 5%;

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

"(a) jury: 0;

(b) non-jury: 100%."

Judge Pieper provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as an associate.

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

"I handled tax and estate planning matters as well as collection and foreclosure proceedings which were routine and did not involve significant litigation."

Judge Pieper reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.

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

"(a) April 1989 - October 1991, part-time Berkeley County Magistrate; appointed position; civil jurisdiction of $2500 and limited criminal jurisdiction depending on the statute involved. Presided over all cases assigned to my office. Eventually, I was appointed Chief Magistrate.

(b) June 1993 - June 1996, Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge; appointed position. Duties - I presided over all circuit court non-jury trials and proceedings referred to my office for disposition; in addition, as Special Circuit Judge, I presided over most pretrial proceedings and motions in civil jury and non-jury cases; minor settlements; civil or criminal appeals from magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as judicial review of state agency cases such as workers' compensation appeals, and grand jury proceedings. I gained a wide variety of circuit court judicial experience.

(c) June 1996 - present, Resident Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit; elected by the General Assembly. Preside over all civil and criminal matters and appeals within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. I have also been assigned as an acting Supreme Court Justice."

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

"(a) Stewart v. Richland Memorial Hospital, 567 SE2d 510 (S.C. App. 2002); This case involved a negligence action against a public hospital alleging a nurse breached the standard of care. The case focused on the applicable standard under the Tort Claims Act as well as the applicability of the Act's mandatory caps. Affirmed;

(b) State v. Christopher Pittman, (2005); This was an interesting case involving a 12 year old who killed his two grandparents. The case was transferred from family court and received world-wide attention as it raised many issues relating to the juvenile justice system and sentencing. The appeal is currently pending;

(c) State v. Harvin, 547 SE2d 497 (2001); murder/armed robbery case. This case involved a novel issue of the applicability of New York law to a statement given by the defendant while detained in that state on an unrelated charge. Affirmed;

(d) State v. Dennis, 523 SE2d 173 (1999); murder trial. The case dealt with interesting issues pertaining to severance as well as the use of an excited utterance by a co-defendant and whether the use of that statement violated the confrontation clause. Affirmed;

(e) State v. Cannon, 520 SE2d 317 (1999); drug case. Originally, the Court of Appeals reversed the court's decision allowing the introduction into evidence certain drugs that were seized incident to a warrantless arrest. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and held that the trial court's ruling was correct. The case involved a problematic provision in the criminal domestic violence act."

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

"Adjunct Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law, 2005 and 2007 (current adjunct). Taught criminal law as well as Equity and Equitable Remedies."

Judge Pieper further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I previously ran for the Court of Appeals in Spring 2004. The Commission found me qualified and nominated me for consideration by the General Assembly."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Pieper's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

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

Judge Pieper is not married. He has no children.

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

"(a) S.C. Bar Association;

(b) Honorary member Charleston and Berkeley County Bar Association;

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

The Commission noted that Judge Pieper's outstanding grasp of legal issues was demonstrated by his performance on the Commission's practice and procedure test, which would serve him well on the Court of Appeals. They commented that he has raised the bar in this State on outstanding judicial temperament. The Commission found Judge Pieper qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

Benjamin H. Culbertson
Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Culbertson was born in 1959. He is 48 years old and a resident of Georgetown, South Carolina. Judge Culbertson 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 Culbertson.

Judge Culbertson 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 Culbertson reported that he has made $66.00 in campaign expenditures for "postage."

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

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

"(a) Master-in-Equity Annual Meeting 02/23/2007;

(b) Master-in-Equity Bench/Bar Seminar 10/13/2006;

(d) Master-in-Equity Bench/Bar Seminar 10/14/2005;

(e) Master-in-Equity Annual Meeting 02/25/2005;

(f) Judicial Oath of Office (Supreme Court) 12/10/2004;

(g) Master-in-Equity Bench/Bar Seminar 10/15/2004;

(h) New Lawyer Oath (SCTLA Annual Convention) 08/06/2004;

(i) Master-in-Equity Annual Meeting 02/06/2004;

(j) Title Insurance Claims (Chicago Title Ins. Co.) 11/18/2003;

(k) Master-in-Equity Bench/Bar Seminar 10/17/2003;

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

(m) Title Insurance (Chicago Title) 11/19/2002;

(n) Master-in-Equity Bench/Bar Seminar (video) 10/11/2002;

(o) Hot Topics from Best Domestic 09/20/2002;

(p) SCTLA Annual Convention 08/01/2002;

(q) Master-in-Equity Annual Meeting 02/15/2002."

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

"At the Horry County Family Court Seminar in 2005, I gave a lecture on 'Writing Domestic Orders.'"

Judge Culbertson reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Culbertson 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 Culbertson reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

(6) Physical Health:

Judge Culbertson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7) Mental Stability:

Judge Culbertson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8) Experience:

Judge Culbertson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

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

"(a) From 1/14/1985 until 12/31/1990, I was an associate attorney and, then, a partner with the law firm of Schneider and O'Donnell, P.A. I maintained a general practice in all areas of law except tax law.

(b) From 1/1985 until 4/1996, I served as Assistant Municipal Court Judge for the City of Georgetown, SC. I presided over criminal cases occurring in the city where the penalties for convictions were a fine of not more than $500.00 and/or imprisonment of not more than 30 days. I also conducted preliminary hearings and set bond for defendants charged with General Sessions offenses, except for capital murder cases and charges with a penalty of life imprisonment.

(c) From 1/1/1991 until the present, I have been a sole practicing attorney with the firm of Benjamin H. Culbertson, P.A. I maintain a general practice in all areas of law except bankruptcy, tax law and social security claims.

(d) From 4/1996 until the present, I have served as Master-in-Equity for Georgetown County, SC. I preside over non-jury civil cases that are referred to me and have the same jurisdiction and authority as a Circuit Court Judge presiding over the case.

(e) From 7/2001 until the present, I have served as Special Circuit Court Judge under appointment from The Honorable Jean Toal, Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. I have the same jurisdiction and authority as a Circuit Court Judge over matters pending in Georgetown County, except for presiding over trials in General Sessions Court."

Judge Culbertson further reported:

"I have represented criminal defendants in General Sessions Court and Magistrate Court. I have defended persons charged with burglary, criminal sexual conduct, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, domestic violence, DUI, felony DUI, possession of controlled substances, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and various other charges. I have represented people in post conviction relief petitions and, when I first started practice, I assisted the senior partner in our firm with a capital murder case (though I was not an attorney of record).

In most of my criminal defense cases, the defendant either enters the Pre-Trial Intervention Program or pleads guilty to a lesser charge. In one case, I was defending a person charged with Engaging a Child for Sexual Performance where the primary defense was entrapment. The defendant was convicted. In another case, I defended a person charged with burglary where the primary issue was whether or not the person entered a residence. The defendant was acquitted.

In civil cases, I represent plaintiffs in personal injury cases, wrongful death and survival, breach of contract, condemnation, workers compensation and real estate disputes. I have also represented defendants in breach of contract disputes. In one case, I represented a person charged with breach of contract where the primary issue was the plaintiff's failure to perform under the contract. Though the defendant lost at trial, the lower court's decision was reversed on appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals."

Judge Culbertson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) federal: None;

(b) state: I have appeared in state court approximately twice a year during the past five years."

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

"(a) civil: 15%;

(b) criminal: 15%;

Judge Culbertson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) jury: 5%;

(b) non-jury: 95%."

Judge Culbertson provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

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

"(a) Century 21 - Grimes & Associates v. John E. Benford, Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-356. In this case, I represented a defendant who was sued for breach of contract. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to pay a commission on a real estate sale. The defendant lost at trial but, on appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, citing the plaintiff's failure to perform under the contract;

(b) State of South Carolina v. James William King, Docket No. 00-GS22-0387. I represented a defendant charged with Burglary 1st degree, Burglary 3rd degree and Grand Larceny. The primary issue was whether or not the defendant entered a residence. The defendant was acquitted of all charges;

(c) Jerry Bolen v. Tommy Morris Construction and S.C. Home Builders Self Insured Fund, WCC File No. 9918808. In this case, I represented an employee in his workers' compensation claim where the primary issue was whether or not the employee sustained an injury during the course of his employment. The employee was found to have a compensable injury. The decision of the single commissioner was affirmed on appeal to the full commission;

(d) State of South Carolina v. Edwin Lavelle Rogerson, Jr., Docket No. 98-GS22-447. In this case, I represented a defendant charged with Engaging a Child for Sexual Performance and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. The primary defense was entrapment. The defendant was convicted;

(e) SCDSS v. Jamie Ward, et al., 2000-DR22-84. In this case, the South Carolina Department of Social Services sought termination of the parental rights to children whose sibling had been murdered. I represented the children's father who was incarcerated on unrelated charges at the time of the child's murder. The sole grounds for termination of the father's parental rights were that his children had been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. The primary issue was whether or not the father's parental rights could be terminated since he did not engage in any action that caused the removal of the children. The court terminated the father's parental rights and the father appealed. The case settled while on appeal."

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

"The only civil appeal that I have handled personally is Century 21-Grimes & Associates vs. John E. Benford, Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-356. In this case, I represented a defendant who was sued for breach of contract. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to pay a commission on a real estate sale. The defendant lost at trial but, on appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, citing the plaintiff's failure to perform under the contract."

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

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

"(a) From 1/1985 until 4/1996, I served as Assistant Municipal Court Judge for the City of Georgetown, SC. I was appointed by City Council and presided over criminal cases occurring in the city where the penalties for convictions were a fine of not more than $500.00 and/or imprisonment of not more than 30 days. I also conducted preliminary hearings and set bond for defendants charged with General Sessions offenses, except for capital murder cases and charges with a penalty of life imprisonment.

(b) From 4/1996 until the present, I have served as Master-In-Equity for Georgetown County, SC. I am appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the General Assembly. I preside over non-jury civil cases that are referred to me and have the same jurisdiction and authority as a Circuit Court Judge presiding over the case.

(c) From 7/2001 until the present, I have served as Special Circuit Court Judge under appointment from The Honorable Jean Toal, Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. I have the same jurisdiction and authority as a Circuit Court Judge over matters pending in Georgetown County, except for presiding over trials in General Sessions Court."

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

"(a) Stella Sue Roland, et al. v. Heritage Litchfield, Inc., et al. (S.C. Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 4204, Filed 2/5/2007). In this case, eleven condominium owners sued the developer and general contractor for numerous causes of action after discovering mold in the firewall areas of their condominiums. I granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment as to liability. The developer and general contractor appealed, claiming that disputed issues of material fact existed and that the plaintiffs had no standing for damages to the common areas since they did not own the common areas. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed my order granting summary judgment;

(b) Martha Geathers v. 3V, Inc. and EBI Companies and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, (S.C. Supreme Court, Opinion No. 26254, filed 1/29/2007). This case involves a dispute between two workers compensation carriers. EBI Companies (EBI) claims that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) is solely liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff during the course of her employment with 3V, Inc., a company previously insured by EBI but currently insured by Liberty. Liberty claims that the liability should be apportioned between the two carriers. Liberty asserts that the plaintiff sustained her injury during the time that 3V, Inc. was insured by EBI and, then, aggravated that injury during the time 3V, Inc. was insured by Liberty. The full commission apportioned liability between the two carriers. On appeal to the Circuit Court, as Special Circuit Court Judge, I reversed the full commission and held Liberty solely liable. My ruling was based upon a finding that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement from her first injury and was released from her medical provider. Therefore, the second claim was not related to the first but, rather, a new claim based upon a second accident. My decision was reversed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the South Carolina Court of Appeals and affirmed my decision;

(c) Martha Melton Williams, et al. v. James W. Weaver, et al., (South Carolina Court of Appeals, Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-314, filed 8/3/2006). In this case, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed my decision as Master-In-Equity holding the Last Will and Testament of a decedent valid. The plaintiffs sought to have the Will set aside, alleging undue influence;

(d) Patrick M. Siau, et al. v. Kal Kassel, et al. , (South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 4133, filed 7/3/2006). In this case, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed my decision, as Master-In-Equity, holding that the defendant had violated set-back restrictions under the county zoning ordinance and subdivision restrictive covenants when building his house. The defendant claimed that he had not violated set-back restrictions because he owned tidal property which adjoined his property and, thus, created the necessary set-backs. I found that the defendant did not own the tidal property but, rather, that the tidal property was owned by the state under the 'public use' doctrine;

(e) Richard Rife v. Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., et al., (South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 3936, filed 1/31/2005). In this case, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed my decision, as Special Circuit Court Judge, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. This is a products liability case wherein the plaintiff sued the defendant for the manufacturing of a defective product. The defendant was granted summary judgment because it manufactured the product in question abroad and sold it in a foreign market. The product was never intended for distribution in the United States but, the plaintiff's employer purchased the product on the secondary market and imported it into the United States."

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

(b) From 1/1/1991 until the present, I have been a sole practicing attorney with the firm of Benjamin H. Culbertson, P.A. I maintain a general practice in all areas of law except bankruptcy, tax law and social security claims."

Judge Culbertson further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"In 1998, I filed for Resident Seat #2, 15th Judicial Circuit, vacated by the retirement of Judge David Maring. I withdrew as a candidate when Judge Paula Thomas (who was an at-large judge) filed for the resident seat. When Judge Thomas was elected to the resident seat, I filed for her vacated at-large seat, as well as 2 other vacated at-large seats. Though I was found to be one of the three most qualified candidates in one of the at-large seat races, I withdrew voluntarily because Judge Buddy Nicholson was the obvious candidate for election. On another occasion, I filed for an Administrative Law judgeship. Though I was found qualified by the JMSC, I was not one of the top three candidates."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Culbertson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Culbertson "to have prior judicial experience and has a high degree of commitment to the activities of the Court. As a result of its investigation and interview with Judge Culbertson, the Committee recommends him without reservation."

Judge Culbertson is married to Renee Kinsey Culbertson. He has three children.

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

"(a) Georgetown County Bar Association;

President (2007); Secretary (1985-1986, 1989-1990);

(b) South Carolina Bar Association (1985 to present);

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

"(a) The Citadel Alumni Association;

(b) The Citadel Brigadier Club;

President (2000-2001);

Vice President (1999-2000);

Secretary/Treasurer (1998-1999);

Executive Committee (1995-1998);

(d) Winyah Indigo Society;

(e) Duncan Memorial United Methodist Church."

The Commission noted that Judge Culbertson is known as a good and fair judge. They commented on his great service as a Master-in-Equity, which would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found Judge Culbertson qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Larry B. Hyman, Jr.
Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

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 on the Circuit Court.

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 made $394.62 in campaign expenditures for stationery and postage.

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) 17 th 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, 1004;

(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:

1Mr. 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 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 no cases pending in the Federal District Court;

(b) state: During the last five (5) years, I have probably appeared before our state courts over 150 times."

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

"(a) civil: 70%;

(b) criminal: 20%;

(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 always 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 Trial 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 principals 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 U.S. 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 the 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 provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"As city judge I had no civil jurisdiction and the criminal matters coming before me rarely required any written orders. Consequently, I am unable to recall or provide the same. To the best of my knowledge, no attorney ever appealed any of my rulings. "

Mr. Hyman reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a city 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 an unsuccessful candidacy:

"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."

(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Hyman's temperament would be excellent.

(10) Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualifications found that Mr. Hyman "has had a lot of experience and is very motivated to be on the Court and is well qualified for the position of Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2. As a result of its investigation and interview with Mr. Hyman, the Pee Dee Citizens Committee recommends Mr. Hyman as a candidate without reservation."

Mr. Hyman is married to Meredith Dianne 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 (Charter Member)."

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

"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."

The Commission noted that Mr. Hyman is a highly respected member of the legal community and is held in great regard by his community. They commented that his well-rounded legal experience would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

CONCLUSION

The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:

Donald W. Beatty Supreme Court, Seat 5
Kaye G. Hearn Supreme Court, Seat 5
H. Bruce Williams. Supreme Court, Seat 5
J. Rene' Josey Court of Appeals, Seat 7
Aphrodite Konduros Court of Appeals, Seat 7
Daniel F. Pieper Court of Appeals, Seat 7
Benjamin H. Culbertson Circuit Court, 15th Jud. Cir., Seat 2
Larry B. Hyman, Jr. Circuit Court, 15th Jud. Cir., Seat 2

ORDERED ENROLLED FOR RATIFICATION

The following Bill was read the third time and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and enrolled for Ratification:

H. 3310 (Word version) -- Reps. M.A. Pitts, Duncan, Gambrell, Herbkersman, Sandifer, Whipper, White, Bedingfield, Weeks, Owens, Rice, Vick and Scarborough: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUNS, SO AS TO ALLOW A PERSON TO CARRY A HANDGUN ON HIS PERSON IN A VEHICLE IF HE HAS A VALID CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT.

By prior motion of Senator HUTTO, with unanimous consent

THIRD READING BILLS

The following Bill and Joint Resolution were read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 657 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler, Alexander, Lourie, Setzler, Matthews, Hayes, Land, Pinckney, Courson, Fair, McGill and Short: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 110 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA CRITICAL NEEDS NURSING INITIATIVE ACT" INCLUDING PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING THE CRITICAL NEEDS NURSING INITIATIVE FUND, TO IMPROVE THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED NURSES IN THIS STATE BY PROVIDING NURSING FACULTY SALARY ENHANCEMENTS, CREATING NEW FACULTY POSITIONS, PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL NURSING STUDENT SCHOLARSHIPS, LOANS, AND GRANTS, ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE FOR HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE RESEARCH TO ANALYZE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND PROVIDING FOR THE USE OF SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT IN THE EDUCATION OF NURSES.

By prior motion of Senator SETZLER, with unanimous consent

S. 729 (Word version) -- Senator Cleary: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PLACE IN MURRELLS INLET AT LEAST EIGHT BUOYS THAT ESTABLISH A NO WAKE ZONE WITHIN FIFTY FEET OF A DOCK.

By prior motion of Senator CLEARY, with unanimous consent

MOTION ADOPTED

On motion of Senator CLEARY, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. Thomas Wayne Powell of Murrells Inlet, S.C. Mr. Powell was a WWII Army and Air Force veteran and an avid sportsman. He was a devoted husband, loving father and doting grandfather and great-grandfather.

ADJOURNMENT

At 11:40 A.M., on motion of Senator JACKSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, May 8, 2007, at 12:00 Noon.

* * *

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 2:01 P.M.