Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

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

Our thought for today is from Psalm 27:7 "Hear, O Lord, when I cry aloud, be gracious to me and answer me!"
Let us pray. Almighty and eternal God, so draw our hearts to You, so guide our minds, so fill our imaginations, so control our wills, that we may be wholly Yours, utterly dedicated to You; then use us to strive for the best we can give to this State and her people. Bless our Nation, President, State, Governor, Speaker, and all who labor in these Halls of Government. Protect our defenders of freedom at home and abroad as they protect us. Hear us as we pray, O Lord. Amen.

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

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

The following was received:

TO:     Members of the General Assembly
FROM:       Thomas C. Alexander
DATE:         January 12, 2010

RE:   Evaluations of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, Members of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, Office of Regulatory Staff, and Executive Director of the Office of Regulatory Staff

Pursuant to Section 58-3-530(3), (4), (6), (7), and (8), the Review Committee is required to evaluate the members of the Public Service Commission (the commission), the commission, the Executive Director of the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS), and the ORS on an annual basis, and submit the evaluations to the General Assembly. Enclosed are the Review Committee's evaluations. Below we discuss the Review Committee's process for evaluating the agencies, the commissioners, and the Executive Director of ORS.

The Review Committee adopted goals and objectives for the commission for the review period with input from the commission. Subsequent to the review period, the commission provided to the Review Committee a written report of its activities during the review period as they relate to those goals and objectives. Utilizing that report, the commission's Accountability Report, and information provided to the Review Committee throughout the review period, the Review Committee evaluated the actions of the commission. The Review Committee finds that the commission fulfilled all of the goals and objectives established in the evaluation document, as reflected in the Review Committee's attached detailed evaluation of the commission.

In order to evaluate the commissioners, the Review Committee sent a questionnaire to the commissioners requesting the following information:

educational programs attended, sponsoring organizations, certificates or recognition received, a description of the topics, a summary of benefit to the commission, and how the program benefited the commissioner;
professional organizations the commissioner is involved in, positions held, committees served on, descriptions of organizations' functions. Explanation of the benefits of participation to the commission, to the commissioner, and to the State of South Carolina (e.g., government, consumers, regulated utilities);
events attended in the commissioner's official capacity, the sponsoring organizations, and descriptions of the activity (if speech or panel discussions, describe the topic);
notable cases in which the commissioner took an active role, including the case name, the docket number, and a brief summary of the deliberations and decision;
greatest accomplishments of the commission during the review period;
the commissioner's most significant accomplishments as a commissioner during the review period; and
areas where there is room for improvement and an explanation as to how the commissioner will take advantage of any opportunities for improvement.

The Review Committee also sent a survey to persons appearing before the commission and to commission employees in accordance with Section 58-3-530(5). The survey solicited information to determine whether the commissioner exhibited the qualities necessary to be an effective hearing officer and decisionmaker:

the commissioner's understanding and communication of the goals and mission of the commission;
the commissioner's familiarity and knowledge of public utility law;
the commissioner's desire to increase his or her knowledge and skills;
the commissioner's treatment of persons appearing before the commissioner;
the commissioner's influence on employee morale and performance;
the commissioner's adherence to applicable ethical standards; and
the commissioner's assurance that hearings were conducted under dignified and orderly procedures.

Because the chairman of the commission is also the chief executive and administrative officer, the Review Committee also solicited input from persons appearing before the commission and commission employees as to the effectiveness of the chairman's leadership and management of the commission. The Review Committee's assessment of each commissioner's performance during the review period is attached.

The Review Committee adopted goals and objectives for the ORS with input from the ORS. Subsequent to the review period, the ORS provided to the Review Committee a written report of its activities as they relate to those goals and objectives. Utilizing that report, the ORS's Accountability Report, and information provided throughout the review period, the Review Committee evaluated the actions of the ORS. The Review Committee finds that the ORS fulfilled all of the goals and objectives established in the evaluation document, as reflected in the Review Committee's attached detailed evaluation.

In order to fulfill its duty to evaluate the performance of the Executive Director, the Review Committee sent a questionnaire to the Executive Director requesting the following information:

educational programs attended, sponsoring organizations, certificates or recognition received, a description of the topics, and how the program benefited the ORS;
professional organizations the Executive Director is involved in, positions held, committees served on, and descriptions of organizations' functions. Explanation of the benefits of participation to the ORS, to the Executive Director, and to the State of South Carolina (e.g., government, consumers, regulated utilities);
events attended in the Executive Director's official capacity, the sponsoring organizations, and descriptions of the activity (if speech or panel discussions, describe the topic);
notable cases in which the Executive Director took an active role, including the case name, the docket number, and a brief summary of the deliberations and decision;
greatest accomplishments of the ORS during the review period;
the Executive Director's most significant accomplishments as the Executive Director during the review period; and
areas where there is room for improvement and an explanation as to how the Executive Director will take advantage of any opportunities for improvement.

Additionally, the Review Committee sent a survey to ORS employees and persons who interacted with the Executive Director, seeking their opinions with respect to the Executive Director's knowledge of public utility issues, his adherence to ethical constraints, his treatment of persons who interacted with him, his effect on employee morale, and his understanding of the goals and mission of the agency. The Review Committee's assessment of the Executive Director's performance during the review period is attached.

If you have any questions, please contact Nancy Coombs at (803) 212-6308.

Exhibit A

Agency:   South Carolina Public Service Commission
Period:   July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009
Mission:   The mission of the Public Service Commission of South Carolina is to carry out the regulatory functions and responsibilities set forth for it by the laws and policies of the State of South Carolina pertaining to the utility and transportation companies through a dynamic and proactive regulatory process reflecting the increased competitive nature of the companies within the nation and this State while seeking to best serve the needs of all of the citizens of the State and also while encouraging a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment for employees.

The commission will comply with the letter and the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.

The commission will appoint hearing officers and examiners to dispose of procedural matters.

The commission will adopt schedules in each docketed case so as to provide adequate time for parties to present their cases and to allow the commission to issue a decision in a timely manner.

The commission will develop a process whereby keep commissioners apprised of the progress on the drafting of decisions so as to facilitate the issuance of orders in a timely manner.

In coordination with the Office of Regulatory Staff, the commission will work towards the design and maintenance of a database that will facilitate public access to information.

The commission will continue to archive past commission orders and make them available online in a searchable format.

The commission will improve methods for companies and other entities to submit and access information, expand opportunities for electronic filings and post information promptly.

The commission will actively enforce applicable disqualification rules and will document recusals.

The commission accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. The commission's FOIA officer responded to several requests for information and satisfied all requests by utilizing the Docket Management System. Hearing officers and examiners were appointed in 31 cases and issued 61 directives related to those cases. The commission notifies all parties associated with items on the upcoming weekly agenda either by telephone or email. A new customer complaint process being implemented aims to resolve cases in 45 days. The commission utilizes a monthly report to monitor the status of orders. The order process has been streamlined to dispense with formal orders for procedural matters and allows the commission to issue final "directives" instead. A joint company database between the commission and the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) that would contain company contact information and other detailed information, such as annual report data and operating history, became operational this year. This database is currently used internally to provide historical and contact information for staff, but the database will become available to the public in the near future. Enhancements were made to the Docketing Management System (DMS), which provides public access via the Internet to information on cases. Orders dating from 1974 are now posted on the DMS website. The commission completed the design of its Order Index System, an online system that cross references orders by case name and keywords. Phase I of this system will launch in early fall 2009. Electronic filing use has increased 12% from last year. The tariff electronic filing system (ETariff,) allows users to view tariffs online and file revisions and promotions to tariffs on file with the commission electronically. More than 75% of all tariff revisions are filed electronically. The commission continues to document disqualifications and recusals. Commissioners and staff review dockets weekly to determine if recusals are necessary.

The commissioners and commission staff will attend meetings, conferences, and seminars dealing with utility issues, including those sponsored by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

The commission will subscribe to public utility publications and will provide a process whereby all commissioners and professional staff are provided an opportunity to read articles of interest.

When necessary, the commission will retain outside experts for presentations of emerging utility issues, including federal regulatory developments.

The commission will hold in-house seminars on various areas of regulatory law for commissioners and staff, relying on both commission staff and outside experts.

The commission accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. Commissioners and staff attended the Southeast Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioner (SEARUC) Annual Conference, hosted by PSC Commissioner and SEARUC President, David Wright. Commissioners attended conferences sponsored by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the Southeast Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (SEARUC). The commission sent representatives to various functions, including the NARUC Utility Rate School, NARUC New Commissioner Training, NARUC Staff Subcommittee on Accounting and Finance, Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition meetings, Eastern Interconnection committee meetings, Transmission Business School, Conference on Current Issues, NERC Planning Committee meetings, NERC Compliance and Certification Committee Meetings, Institute for Regulatory Law and Economics, Bonbright Center Electric and Natural Gas Conference, National Petroleum Council meeting, Gas Technology Institute Public Interest Committee meeting, and Emerging Issues Policy Forum. Commissioners hold various leadership positions within NARUC and SEARUC. The commission makes publications available to commissioners and staff, prepares and circulates a weekly compilation of links to articles of interest available on the Internet, and emails to the commissioners and staff monthly executive briefings published by the National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI). The commission launched an internal blog to inform Commissioners and staff of current happenings on federal and state levels and provide a forum for discussion of current events. It also monitors court decisions and utility publications and websites to stay informed when relevant rulings and filings have been made or are scheduled to be made in anticipation of the subsequent affect on the PSC. Commission members attended webinars featuring outside experts for presentations concerning natural gas planning and pre-approval commitments for cost recovery. The commission held various in-house seminars on topics such as Natural Gas Rate Stabilization Act, Eligible Telecommunications Carrier designation, Base Load Review Act, and the Universal Service Fund.

The commission will conduct public workshops to foster a better understanding of regulatory developments, identify best practices, and, when appropriate, promulgate industry standards.

The commission will undertake a comprehensive review of its regulations and, when necessary and appropriate, propose revisions to regulations, solicit comments on the proposed regulations, and submit recommended amendments to regulations to the General Assembly.

The commission accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. It held public workshops concerning renewable resources and clean energy, energy efficiency and demand side management, customer choice and technology investment act, and critical infrastructure issues. The General Assembly adopted revisions to regulations concerning motor carriers, electric, gas and telecommunications during the 2008 session. In addition, the General Assembly approved revisions concerning motor carriers, telecommunications, and practice and procedures. The commission received public comments and held public hearings on the proposed revisions.

The commission will conduct an ethics seminar for professional staff and administrative and support personnel.

The commission will conduct a seminar on the administrative procedures act for commissioners, professional staff, and administrative and support personnel.

The commission will publish an in-house ethics newsletter, providing commissioners and staff with updates on issues arising under the Code of Judicial Conduct and Title 8 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.

The commission will designate an in-house ethics officer to respond to questions from commissioners and employees and to hear concerns from commissioners and employees regarding permissible or impermissible conduct.

The commission will devise a comprehensive educational plan for commissioners and professional staff to ensure the commission has the necessary knowledge to adjudicate cases and identify issues and developments in utility law.

The commission accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. The commissioners and staff attended an in-house ethics and administrative procedures act seminar. It published its in-house ethics newsletter. Members of the Commission's Office of Special Assistants conducted presentations on purchased gas adjustment and fuel clauses, energy efficiency, rate making, introductory classes on accounting principles, electric industry regulation, natural gas regulation, and telecommunications regulation. The commission also developed individual and departmental training programs; however, due to budget constraints, most training classes were cancelled. It encourages staff members to participate in professional organizations in their field.

The commission has a prevention and wellness program to educate its members on good health practices. Some of the activities included cholesterol and blood pressure screening, weekly health tips, flu shots and a wellness website. Commission members also participated in several community service events to support and strengthen their communities through donations of time and resources.

The commission will develop guidelines for communicating with members of the General Assembly, the Office of Regulatory Staff, regulated utilities, competitive entrants, and consumer representatives, and communicate the protocol to all.

The commission will hold meetings of its Advisory Committee at least once every six months to obtain suggestions as to how to improve its procedures.

The Commission will develop and implement a process to anonymously send an anonymous survey to its Advisory Committee members to solicit their opinions regarding the Commission's progress in carrying out its performance goals.

The commission will provide regular reports to the Review Committee as to its activities - agency news, new hires, etc. - and make those reports available on its website.

The commission will improve its website so as to provide more information and make it more accessible to the public.

The commission accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. It has established communications guidelines. The commission's Advisory Committee meeting addressed issues related to operations and procedures, such as website modifications, statutory revisions to regulations, implementation of the directives as orders procedures, customer service complaint process, pro se litigants, and SEARUC 2009. The commission sent an anonymous survey to parties appearing before the commission and the docketing department conducts its own survey concerning customer satisfaction. The commission provides reports to the Review Committee by newsletters, email updates, budget reports and press releases. The commission continually updates its website. A review of the commission's transportation forms was conducted and paper forms were converted into interactive forms that can be completed online. The homepage received an average of 12,500 views per month, with requests from over 35 countries. The DMS website received a monthly average of 32,500 views, with visitors from 47 countries. The ETariff website received nearly 600 visits per month with visitors from 15 countries.

The commission's comptroller will prepare weekly reports reflecting the agency's budgetary status.

The commission's chairman, chief administrator and comptroller will review the commission's expenditures on a weekly basis and make necessary adjustments.

The commission's departments will submit their projected budgets for education, equipment, training, and other budgetary needs.

The commissioners will be apprised of the commission's fiscal affairs on a periodic basis.

The commission accomplished all of the above objectives and action items. The commission's comptroller prepares a weekly budget analysis report, as well as a consolidated monthly report that is sent to the Budget and Control Board Division of Finance. The commission's chairman, chief clerk, deputy clerk, and comptroller regularly review the agency's budgetary status and make adjustments where necessary based on developed contingency plans. Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, department managers submit budgets for all budgetary needs for their areas. Throughout the year, the managers update their requirements so that revisions can be made. The Chairman works with the Chief Clerk to plan the agency's budget. Summary reports containing both budget and expense information are regularly compiled and provided to the commissioners.
Exhibit B

Commissioner Howard was initially elected to the commission on March 3, 2004 and was reelected on May 21, 2008. He was elected Vice Chairman of the Public Service Commission in July 2008. During his tenure, he has taken advantage of many opportunities to expand his understanding of public utilities issues. Commissioner Howard seeks to increase his knowledge and skills by attending educational programs and seminars. He has also reads professional and trade publications and books related to water, telecommunications and energy issues.

Commissioner Howard is an active member of NARUC and SEARUC and is the co-vice chairman of the NARUC Committee on Water. He attended the following educational programs and events:

NARUC Rate School, sponsored by the Committee on Water (faculty member) ;
Ethics Seminar;
National Association of Water Companies Water Policy Forum, where he provided a commissioner's point of view in a discussion of issues faced by water and wastewater utilities;
"Securing Our Future: the Nuclear Alternative", sponsored by MUSC;
FERC/NERC Collaborative on Demand Response;
FERC/NERC Collaborative Smart Grid;
Lehman Brothers "Chat with Commissioners" where he was a panelist to discuss issues regarding economic viability of regulated utilities with members of the Wall Street community;
S.C. Energy Users Committee Conference.
Commissioner Howard was recently asked to participate on the Department of Homeland Security's Water Sector Coordinating Council, comprised of 50 members throughout the United States.

Based on surveys of persons appearing before the commission and commission employees, Commissioner Howard is courteous to all persons appearing before him, is impartial in his treatment of persons appearing before him, has a positive effect on employee morale, and is respected by attorneys and persons appearing before the commission. The Review Committee's review revealed no evidence of unethical behavior by Commissioner Howard.

Commissioner Wright was initially elected on March 3, 2004, and was re-elected on May 21, 2006. During his tenure, he has taken advantage of many opportunities to expand his understanding of public utilities issues.

Commissioner Wright is a member of NARUC's Energy, Resources and the Environment Committee and its Washington Action Committee. He is chairman of SEARUC and NARUC's Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues and Waste Disposal. He serves as national chairman for the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC) and its board of directors. He is also the national chairman for the Yucca Mountain Task Force. He is a member of the Program Advisory Committee at Michigan State's Institute of Public Utilities.

Commissioner Wright attended the following educational programs and events:

NARUC meetings (summer, annual and winter);
SEARUC Commissioners-Only meeting;
Platts Conference on the Future of Nuclear in the U.S., where he gave a presentation concerning S.C.'s Base Load Review Act;
NWSC meetings;
Ethics Seminar;
Testified before the U.S. Senate Energy Committee as SEARUC President on Senator Bingaman's proposal to establish a national renewable portfolio standard;
Participated in a roundtable discussion before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the future of recycling and reprocessing;
Attended and participated in several Capitol Hill visits through NARCU and NWSC concerning the history of Yucca Mountain and nuclear issues, such as nuclear waste disposal, reprocessing and recycling.

In addition to the above, Commissioner Wright was responsible for the planning, programming, and coordination for SEARUC's annual Charleston. The conference was not only an opportunity for commissioners, their staffs, and others to share experiences and become knowledgeable about current regulatory issues but also an opportunity to showcase Charleston. The conference was well attended and a great success.

Based on surveys of persons appearing before the commission and commission employees, the subcommittee finds that Commissioner Wright is courteous to all persons appearing before him, is impartial in his treatment of persons appearing before him, has a positive influence on employee morale, and is respected by attorneys and persons appearing before the commission. The Review Committee's review revealed no evidence of unethical behavior by Commissioner Wright.

Commissioner Mitchell was initially elected to the commission for a term beginning July 1, 1998, and was most recently reelected on May 21, 2008. During his tenure, he has taken advantage of many opportunities to expand his understanding of public utilities issues. He is a member of NARUC's Telecommunications Committee and serves as liaison between the Committee on Telecommunications and the Committee on Critical Infrastructure. He also serves a Vice Chairman of the "706 Special Access Study Committee of the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services, which is examining the public's access to DSL service. Commissioner Mitchell seeks to increase his knowledge and skills by attending educational programs.

Commissioner Mitchell attended the following educational programs and events:

NARUC summer conference, where he presented a report on the activities of the Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services regarding the progress of broadband and its recommendations to the FCC;
SEARUC Commissioners Only meeting;
Bonbright Electrical & Natural Gas Conference;
NARUC annual conference, where he participated in a discussion concerning telecommunications and DSL;
SEARUC Annual Conference, where he served as a moderator for a telecommunications panel;
Given presentations at the Gilbert Ruritan Club (energy and the environment), Greenwood Lions Club (nuclear energy and Base Load Review Act), and Edgefield Legion Auxiliary (PSC operations).

Based on surveys of persons appearing before the commission and commission employees, Commissioner Mitchell is courteous to all persons appearing before him, is impartial in his treatment of persons appearing before him, has a positive influence on employee morale, and is respected by attorneys and persons appearing before the commission. The Review Committee's review revealed no evidence of unethical behavior by Commissioner Mitchell.

Chairman Fleming was initially elected March 3, 2004, and was reelected May 21, 2006. She was elected PSC Chairman in July 2008. During her tenure, she has taken advantage of many opportunities to expand her understanding of public utilities issues. She is the chairman for NARUC's Committee on Critical Infrastructure and a member of NARUC's Board of Directors and its Committee on Electricity. She is also NARUC's state designee for the Eastern Interconnection Planning Initiative and serves as an advisory council member for the Center for Public Utilities at New Mexico State University. Chairman Fleming seeks to increase her knowledge and skills by attending educational programs.

Chairman Fleming attended the following educational programs and events:

NARUC Summer and Annual meetings;
SEARUC Commissioners Only and Annual meetings;
Bonbright Center Electric and Natural Gas Conference;
Institute for Regulatory Law Economics;
Gee Strategies Group - Utility Commissioner and Wall Street Journal Dialogue;
Transmission Business School;
Ethics seminar;
Gave an update for the PSC at the S.C. Telephone Association Spring Convention and at SC Energy Users Committee meetings;
Participated in the Converse College Women in Energy Luncheon and Panel Discussion;
Served as Moderator for NARUC Electricity and Critical Infrastructure Panel.

Based on surveys of persons appearing before the commission and commission employees, Chairman Fleming is courteous to all persons appearing before her, is impartial in her treatment of persons appearing before her, has a positive influence on employee morale, and is respected by attorneys and persons appearing before the commission. The Review Committee's review revealed no evidence of unethical behavior by Chairman Fleming.

Commissioner Hamilton was initially elected on March 3, 2004, and was reelected on May 21, 2008. He was elected vice-chairman by the commissioners for a term beginning July 1, 2004, and chairman, July 1, 2006. He is the chairman of NARUC's Committee on Gas and serves on NARUC's Board of Directors. He is a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Moratoria Study Group, formed by NARUC and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. During his tenure, he has taken advantage of many opportunities to expand his understanding of public utilities issues. Commissioner Hamilton seeks to increase his knowledge and skills by attending educational programs.

Commissioner Hamilton attended the following educational programs and events:

NARUC Annual, Winter and Summer meetings;
SEARUC Annual meeting;
Ethics seminar;
National Petroleum Council Meeting;
Instructor at the NARUC New Commissioner Training;
SEARUC Commissioners Only meeting;
Bonbright Electric & Natural Gas Conference;
Panelist for the New Mexico State University Center for Public Utilities Current Issues;
Public Interest Advisory Committee Meeting, Gas Technology Institute;
Presentation at the Piedmont Municipal Power Agency.

Based on surveys of persons appearing before the commission and commission employees, Commissioner Hamilton is courteous to all persons appearing before him, is impartial in his treatment of persons appearing before him, has a positive influence on employee morale, and is respected by attorneys and persons appearing before the commission. The Review Committee's review revealed no evidence of unethical behavior by Commissioner Hamilton.

Commissioner Whitfield was elected to the commission for a term beginning July 1, 2008. During his short tenure, he has taken advantage of many opportunities to expand his understanding of public utilities issues. He is member of the NARUC Energy Resources and Environment Committee. Commissioner Whitfield seeks to increase his knowledge and skills by attending educational programs.

Commissioner Whitfield attended the following educational programs:

PSC in-house training and ethics sessions;
NARUC Boot Camp and new commissioner training;
NARUC Annual, Winter, and Summer meetings;
Nuclear Energy Summit, sponsored by MUSC;
SEARUC Commissioners Only Summit and other SEARUC meetings;
Bonbright Conference;
Conquering Climate Change seminar.

Based on surveys of persons appearing before the commission and commission employees, Commissioner Whitfield is courteous to all persons appearing before him, is impartial in his treatment of persons appearing before him, has a positive influence on employee morale, and is respected by attorneys and persons appearing before the commission. The Review Committee's review revealed no evidence of unethical behavior by Commissioner Whitfield.
Exhibit C

Agency:   South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff

Period:   July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009

Mission:   The Office of Regulatory Staff represents the public's interest in utility regulation by balancing the concerns of the using and consuming public, the financial integrity of public utilities, and the economic development of South Carolina.

The ORS resolves consumer complaints in a timely manner.

The ORS provides technical regulatory assistance to public utilities.

The ORS solicits public input on emerging issues.

The ORS optimizes consumer education and outreach efforts by publishing brochures, fliers, and booklets and by communicating consumer-oriented information and news via its web site and participation in public forums.

The ORS provides press releases and alerts to media when newsworthy matters involving public utilities arise.

The ORS responds to requests for assistance from the Governor, legislators, and others.

The Office of Regulatory Staff accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. The ORS has continued to be very responsive to the public in FY 08-09 and maintained a helpful presence in both traditional mainstream media and on the ORS and SC.Gov websites. The ORS reports approximately 84 contacts from the media - resulting in direct coverage of the ORS in about 80 online and print news articles - a fourfold increase over the prior fiscal year. Further, the ORS distributed approximately 97,000 pieces of consumer education and outreach material. In addition to recurring cost savings initiated in a FY 06-07 agreement with a certain investor-owned utility as to offering real-time price signals, ORS staff processed 3,779 individual consumer complaints and inquiries in FY 08-09 and saved customers a total of $3,231,406. The ORS also worked with investor-owned electric and gas utilities and women's shelters to waive the initial credit and deposit requirements for domestic violence victims and continued successful programs such as Safety Net, Lifeline, and Link-up. Further, the ORS has continued its exceptional tradition of excellent communication with legislative, gubernatorial, and other state agency staff.

The ORS analyzes and evaluates the performance of public utilities.

The ORS equitably enforces the laws, rules, and regulations relating to public utilities.
The ORS minimizes the regulatory burden on public utilities by providing technical assistance, streamlining processes, and communicating expectations.

The Office of Regulatory Staff accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. The ORS continued to promote excellence in regulated industries and monitored the performance of public utilities in South Carolina through 315 regulatory reviews and audits, an increase of 29% in audit activities compared to FY 07-08. ORS staff played an integral role in passage of the Customer Choice and Technology Investment Act of 2009, which allows local exchange carriers to elect further deregulatory treatment and reduce withdrawals from the State Universal Service Fund and Interim LEC Fund. Consumer choice increased in the Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) market, as FY08-09 saw an increase in applications and approvals for ETC designation. The ORS also revised and simplified annual report forms, which resulted in increased utility/carrier compliance and provided 38 letters of support to electric and gas utilities for various financing options, special purchases, tariff modifications, or industrial incentives, which generally aid in the recruitment of new industry, retention of existing industry, and the financial health of South Carolina. The ORS also prepared a report in conjunction with the South Carolina Energy Office recommending processes and procedures for establishing net metering programs at all distribution electric utilities in South Carolina. Finally, the ORS increased use of rule-to-show-cause petitions to ensure that utilities comply with regulatory requirements. Of the 1,553 utilities named in a rule-to-show-cause petition, over 75% did not come into compliance and had their operating certificates revoked by the Public Service Commission. The rule-to-show-cause effort communicates to regulated utilities that the ORS will enforce the standards set by law.

The ORS represents all facets of the public interest consumers, public utilities, and the economic well being of South Carolina by facilitating settlement   discussions among parties and by conducting mediations.

The number of complaints processed, audits performed, enforcement actions brought, technical regulatory assistance provided, and commission proceedings participated in justify the number of employees and operational costs of the ORS.

The societal benefits of utility rate stability and affordability, financial performance, infrastructure investment, competition, and environmental protection exceeds the monetary costs of the ORS' operations.

The Office of Regulatory Staff accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. The ORS made prudent use of its expenditures to provide value to the citizens of South Carolina in FY 08-09. Again, ORS made effective use of staff, processing 3,779 individual consumer complaints and inquiries and completing 315 regulatory reviews and audits in FY 08-09. The ORS facilitated 39 settlement agreements during FY 08-09, generating total customer savings of approximately $148 million. The ORS continued to research and analyze SC's generational mix, future needs, and potential solution. The ORS presented an extensive study to state and federal lawmakers on these issues and how federal cap-and-trade may affect the state. One very important tool the ORS has emphasized as a solution to the state's need for reliable carbon neutral power has been the Base Load Review Act. Under the Act, the ORS supported SCE&G's application of two new nuclear units in the Midlands. The construction and subsequent operation of these Units 2 and 3 at the V.C. Summer Plant will employ approximately 3,600 people during the ten-year construction phase, and will provide a reliable carbon neutral power source for years to come. These units could generate as much as $1 billion in federal tax credits, and the ORS continues to monitor Congressional action on these potential credits. The ORS has also engaged the Surface Transportation Board in an effort to address concerns that the rapidly accelerating cost of coal transportation via rail for electric fuel generation will ultimately have an adverse impact on electric consumers. One third of the total delivered cost of coal is transportation cost, and an annual ORS fuel review reveals that for two specific regulated electric utilities generating electricity for South Carolina consumers, rail rate increases of between 50% and 100% on expiring five- and ten-year contracts respectively will result in additional charges of over $100,000,000 to consumers. The ORS sought to bring this issue to the forefront so that SC's captive electric plants are not put in the unfortunate position of having to pay exorbitant unjustified prices for coal transportation. There is no question that the ORS's societal value far exceeds the monetary costs of the ORS's operations.

The ORS consults with and/or retains recognized experts to assess emerging trends or specific issues.

The ORS reviews, analyzes, and monitors regulatory, statutory, and judicial decisions or trends on both the federal and state levels with regard to utility regulation. The ORS gathers and provides input, participates, or takes other appropriate action when necessary.

The Office of Regulatory Staff accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. Again, the ORS has been vigilant in FY 08-09 in monitoring and responding to potential federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and has also continued to monitor potential federal renewable portfolio standards. The ORS published the S.C. Energy Policy Report and presented its findings to an unprecedented gathering of the entire SC Congressional Delegation in Washington. The ORS has kept South Carolina's state and federal leaders aware that a coal intensive generational mix, high electricity consumption, low median household income, and a lack of viable renewable energy sources could lead to disastrous consequences in South Carolina over the next few decades under these new federal mandates. As seen with the ORS's support for the V.C. Summer facility, the ORS has shown its dedication to developing reliable carbon neutral energy sources in South Carolina to mitigate the potential impact of these possible federal mandates. In light of interest in potential stimulus package money, ORS and the State Energy Office conducted several meetings with electric suppliers including investor-owned electric utilities, electric cooperatives, Santee Cooper, and municipal suppliers to discuss funding available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The federal stimulus money, available to each South Carolina electric utility, is matching fund grants that are capped at $20 million, and the ORS continues to pursue funding that does not have a matching requirement. The ORS has posted links on its web site to critical dates pertaining to various U.S. Department of Energy ARRA funding opportunities. The ORS has also continued to be active in representing the state's interests in matters before the Federal Communications Commission, the Surface Transportation Board, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The ORS manages human resources and human resource systems to hire and retain qualified personnel who will carry out the mission of the ORS.

The ORS executive director and staff maintain and enhance their knowledge by attending conferences and meetings, keeping abreast of best regulatory practices   in other states, and participating in ethic training and other types of internal and external professional training.

The ORS embraces the implementation of technology in the workplace.

The ORS responds to requests for assistance from the Governor, legislators, and others.

The ORS coordinates with other state and federal agencies.

The Office of Regulatory Staff accomplished all of the objectives and action items listed above. The ORS's operations are unmistakably marked by professional excellence. A new database system, new offices at 1401 Main Street, and plans to enhance the current website are a few of the physical changes in FY 08-09 that will assist the ORS in maintaining its high standards. Ongoing staff training in ethics, regulatory environment, and service delivery have continued to keep these standards high as well. ORS staff decreased or maintained average time to resolve contacts from customers (when compared to prior four-year average) in the following categories: Electric, Natural Gas, Wastewater, Transportation, and Water. The Review Committee has both experienced and received comments on the professional and diligent manner the ORS staff exhibits at every level. The ORS has an impressive list of federal, state, and local agencies and entities, both public and private, that it collaborates with; the consensus among these groups is that the ORS is an agency to be congratulated and appreciated.

Exhibit D

C. Dukes Scott was appointed as Executive Director of the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) on July 1, 2004. Prior to his appointment as Executive Director, Mr. Scott served in many capacities in public service, beginning as a staff attorney at the South Carolina Public Service Commission (the commission), progressing to executive assistant to the commissioners, general counsel, and deputy director of the commission. He was elected to the commission in 1994 and was elected as an administrative law judge in 1999. He also worked in private practice in the public utility arena. Mr. Scott brings a wealth of experience in the public utility and administrative law areas to his position as Executive Director.

Mr. Scott is committed to excellence and leads by example, giving his staff a clear direction of the agency's mission and the standards it should follow to achieve that mission. He upholds the highest standards of professionalism in his conduct, work ethic, and his interactions with utilities, regulatory bodies, and the using and consuming public. He continues to work diligently to make ORS a model of integrity and efficiency in state government. He encourages his employees to grow professionally and expects high standards from them. He credits his staff for the successes of the agency. His staff is recognized for their professionalism and thoroughness in performing their jobs.

Mr. Scott's knowledge of the broad spectrum of public utility issues is unsurpassed in this state. At the request of the Review Committee, Mr. Scott and his staff undertook a comprehensive study of South Carolina's energy situation - what resources the state has in place, how electricity is used, what renewable resources are available, what energy efficiency programs are available or desirable, and what message we need to send Congress about the unique challenges we would face if pending federal legislation dealing with carbon emissions were adopted. Along with members of the Review Committee, he met with South Carolina's Congressional delegation to help them better understand the impact of any federal action addressing climate change. Mr. Scott is always responsive to all persons seeking his assistance - the Review Committee, legislators, other agencies and officials, utility representatives, and many individual consumers themselves.

According to surveys of parties or other persons who interacted with him during the review period, Mr. Scott is professional, courteous, impartial, fair, and highly ethical in his dealings with utilities and other stakeholders. Mr. Scott enjoys the highest level of respect from parties and others who interacted with him during the review period. According to surveys of his employees, Mr. Scott provides valuable leadership and sound guidance to his employees and is highly respected and admired by his staff. It is clear from the surveys that Mr. Scott creates a positive work environment for his employees, and by his example, leads an agency that is responsive to the public and all other stakeholders. Mr. Scott is a compassionate advocate for consumers and a tenacious watchdog for the public interest of South Carolina. He excels in all aspects of his job and is an effective administrator, an outstanding public servant, and an invaluable resource for this state.

Received as information.

The following was received:

Date Draft Report Issued:   January 14, 2010
Date and Time:
Final Report Issued:       Noon, Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at Noon.

Dear Members of the General Assembly:

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

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

Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, January 19, 2010. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, January 19, 2010. 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 212-6623.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

F. G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman

Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman

January 14, 2010
Members of the South Carolina General Assembly
South Carolina State House
Columbia, South Carolina

Dear Fellow Members:

This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate's contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate's behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Fall 2009 screening.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

F. G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman

Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman

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

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

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

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental health, and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1)     survey of the bench and bar;
(2)     SLED and FBI investigation;
(3)     credit investigation;
(4)     grievance investigation;
(5)     study of application materials;
(6)     verification of ethics compliance;
(7)     search of newspaper articles;
(8)     conflict of interest investigation;
(9)     court schedule study;
(10)   study of appellate record;
(11)   court observation; and
(12)   investigation of complaints.

While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact a candidate's fitness for judicial service.
The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.

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

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

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

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

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Justice Beatty was born in 1952. He is 57 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Justice 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 Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Justice Beatty.

Justice 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.

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

Justice 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;

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

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

Justice Beatty described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name
Date

(a)   Judicial Symposium                                     01/27-28/2005;

(b)   Science in the Courts                                   4/07-13/2005;

(c)   Economics of Tort Law;

Economic Theory of Contract Law; Crime           05/25-27/2005;

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

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

(f)   Annual Judicial Symposium-Torts and Scientific

Evidence                                                       07/15/2005;

(g)   Forum for State Appellate Court Judges                   07/23/2005;

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

(i)     Judicial Symposium                                       11/2-4/2005;

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

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

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

(m)   Critical Issues in Construction Defects Litigation     03/29/2006;

(n)   Court Security and Operations after a disaster           06/29/2006;

(o)   Essential Skills for the Appellate Judge                   07/01/2006;

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

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

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

(s)   "Insurance and Risk Allocation in America: Economics

Law and Regulation"                                       09/20/2006;

(t)     Employment Law; Immigration Law; Civil

Procedure                                                       09/28/2006;

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

(v)   5th Annual Civil Law Update                               01/26/2007;

(w)   22nd Annual Criminal Law Update                     01/26/2007;

(x)   The Confrontation Clause of the 6th   Amendment

02/28-03/01/07;

(y)   N.C./S.C. Appellate Judges Conference                   03/01/2007;

(z)   E-Discovery and Spoliation                                 06/29/2007;

(aa)   New Appellate Judges Training                         07/8-13/07;

(bb)   2007 Annual Judicial Conference                       08/22/2007;

(cc)   23rd Annual S.C. Crim. Law Update                   01/25/2008;

(dd)   23rd Annual S.C. Crim. Law Update                   01/25/2008;

(ee)   Breakfast Ethics Seminar                                 01/27/2008;

(ff)   Justice In Jeopardy?                                       07/11-12/08;

(gg)   Summary Judgment on the Rise                         07/12/2008;

(hh)   SCAJ Annual Convention                                 08/7-9/2008;

(ii)   2008 Annual Judicial Conference                         08/20/2008;

(jj)   Federalist Papers                                               0/23/2008;

(kk)   Annual Summit & Retreat                                 10/30/2008;

(ll)   Appellate Summit                                           11/13/2008;

(mm)   7th Annual Civil Law Update                         01/23/2009;

(nn)   Mapping the Legal Frontier-Preemption by

Federal Court                                                   07/10-12/09;

(oo)   Preemption: Will Traditional State

Authority Survive                                             07/25/2009;

(pp)   SCAJ Annual Convention                                 08/6-8/2009.

Justice Beatty reported that he has taught the following:

(a)   Business Law - Limestone College;

(b)   Appellate Practice CLE-Wofford College;

(c)   Appellate Practice and Ethics CLE-Charleston Law School;

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

(e)   Ethics-National Bar Association.

Justice Beatty reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Justice 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:

Justice Beatty reported regarding his Martindale-Hubbell rating, "I have never concerned myself with Martindale-Hubbell ratings and am unfamiliar with any rating I may have had prior to taking the bench. I have never had a client to ask me about my Martindale-Hubbell rating nor have I had a client to say that they came to me for representation because of a Martindale-Hubbell rating. Thus, I have not found Martindale-Hubbell to be beneficial or relevant to my practice. I have never reviewed Martindale-Hubbell ratings."

Justice Beatty reported the following military service:
1974-76 U.S. Army (Active Duty); 1976-81 Army Reserves; Captain; [xxx-xx-xxxx], Honorable Discharge

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

(a)   S.C. House of Representatives 1991-95 (elected);

(b)   Spartanburg City Council 1989-91 (elected).
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Justice 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 case load.

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 plaintiffs and defendants, businesses and individuals.

Justice 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 2003-2007, Elected- Appellate Review;

(c)   S.C. Supreme Court 2007-Present, Elected- Appellate Review.

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

(a)   Colleton Preparatory Academy, Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 379 S.C. 181, 666 S. E.2d 247;

(b)   Donna Moore v. Lance Moore, 376 S.C. 467, 657 S.E.2d 743;

(c)   Laura McCann v. Jane Doe and John Doe, In re Baby McCann, 377 S.C. 373,660 S.E.2d 500;

(d)   Charles Salmonsen v. CGD, Inc. f/k/a Charleston Gypsum Dealers & Supply Co., Inc., 377 S.C. 442, 661 S.E.2d 81, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,994;

(e)   Donney S. Council a/k/a Donnie S. Council v. State of South Carolina, 380 S.C. 159, 670 S.E.2d 356 (Certiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court, June 8, 2009).
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

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

Justice Beatty reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional association:
S.C. Bar Association

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

(a)   Omega Psi Phi Fraternity;

(b)   Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity.
Justice Beatty further reported:

Most of my adult life has been focused on public service. For more than three decades I have been involved with public service in varied capacities including military service as an officer, City Councilman, member of the House of Representatives, Judge, Justice, and numerous civic boards and commissions.

In addition, I have served on committees and task forces concerning the judiciary. Most recently, I served as an organizer and participant in the S.C. Summit on Children. The focus here was to devise a plan to expedite the movement of children from foster care to permanent placement via adoption or otherwise. I am a member of a multi agency task force concerned with the continued operation of courts in a catastrophic situation. I am currently planning and organizing the annual judicial conference. This conference is primarily an educational program for judges.

Currently, I am a member of the Chief Justice's Task force on Access to Public Information. I am also a member of the Sentencing Reform Commission. Service in the judiciary is more than an employment opportunity, it is an opportunity to serve the public and I welcome it.

In conclusion, I graduated cum laude from college, was selected to Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities, and I have received numerous leadership awards from government and civic organizations.

The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Justice Beatty to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Justice Beatty's distinguished service on the bench for 14 years, including his past two years serving as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Justice Beatty qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Supreme Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Few was born in 1963. He is 46 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.

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 not made any campaign expenditures.

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;

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

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:
Conference/CLE Name                             Date

(a)   S.C. Circuit Judges'                         05/05/04;

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

(c)   Annual S.C. Solicitors'                       09/26/04;

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

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

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

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

(h)   Advanced Evidence                         09/25/05;

(i)   Teaching Evidence                         11/14/05;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(q)   SCCA Judicial Conference                   08/22/07;

(r)   23rd Annual Criminal Law Update               01/25/08;

(s)   6th Annual Civil Law Update                 01/25/08;

(t)   Circuit Court Judges'                       05/14/08;

(u)   SCCA Judicial Conference                   08/20/08;

(v)   24th Annual Criminal Law Update               01/23/09;

(w)   Circuit Court Judges'                     05/06/09.

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

(a)   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 Greenville Bar Association CLE programs several times. I have spoken at numerous South Carolina Bar programs as well. In addition, I am a member of the faculty at the National Judicial College, where I taught a class on evidence to other judges in September 2005, and in August 2007. I am currently scheduled to teach a class on evidence through the National Judicial College in September. I have spoken on at least six occasions to the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association, three times at their summer meeting at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, and three at their annual meeting, which is held in a different location each year. I have spoken to the South Carolina Association for Justice Auto Torts seminar in Atlanta. In February 2008 and 2009 I organized and moderated a full-day evidence CLE for the South Carolina Bar entitled "It's All A Game: Top Trial Lawyers Tackle Evidence." That program will be presented again in February, 2010. In the summer of 2008 I served as an Adjunct Professor at the Charleston School of Law teaching Advanced Evidence;

(b)   I have a list available of all the CLE presentations I have made in my career, which I have not attached, but will provide upon request.

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

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

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

Judge Few reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

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

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

(a)   1989-97 - Private Civil Practice, in partnership with my father, J.   Kendall Few;

(b)   1997-2000 - Private Civil Practice by myself.

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

(a)   Federal:   At least once a month;

(b)   State:     At least once a month.

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

(a)   Civil:       100%;

(b)   Criminal:     0%;

(c)   Domestic:     0% (I was appointed in 2 or 3 domestic cases over 11 years).

Judge Few reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

(a)   Jury:         90%;

(b)   Non-jury:     10%.

Judge Few provided that, prior to his service on the bench, "The types of cases I handled while practicing law usually called for more than one lawyer. I almost always served as either chief or associate counsel."

The following is Judge Few's account of his five most significant litigated matters prior to his service on the bench:

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

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

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

This case is significant because an Order I wrote at the request of the district judge was published in the Federal Supplement, and has played a significant role in the development of the law of environmental contamination. The appeal of this case is listed in response to [the significant civil appeals I handled];

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

(d)   Shook v. Golden Rule, 1993 WL 18754 (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 1993).This case against a medical insurance provider is significant in that my co-counsel and I were able to get medical insurance payments immediately made for a severely disabled accident victim whose insurance had been denied in violation of the terms of the policy;

(e)   Cameron v. General Motors Corp., 158 F.R.D. 581 (1994).This case is significant because of the fact that the U.S. District Judge who presided over it was essentially disqualified by the Fourth Circuit, and the case was transferred to a District Judge from West Virginia. The legal issues were substantial, and eventually involved litigation in West Virginia and Detroit Michigan, in addition to South Carolina.

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

(a)   Shockley v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 996 F.2d 1212 (4th Cir. 1993).

I wrote the brief in this case, but did not personally argue the appeal;

(b)   Ehlies v. Shirley, 2000-UP-250;

(c)   Phillips v. Southland Life Insurance Co.

This was the first case I ever tried, and the first appeal I ever argued. I don't have the case number of the unpublished opinion. I lost both the trial and the appeal;

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

(e)   Kelly v. Para-Chem Southern, Inc., 311 S.C. 223, 428 S.E.2d 703 (1993); I do not have copies of any of the briefs, nor do I know how I could get them.

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). The Order was reversed. The Foothills Brewing Concern v. City of Greenville, 377 S.C. 355, 660 S.E.2d 264 (2008);

(c)   Dabbs v. Davis, 01-CP-23-7629 (Order dated March 1, 2004);

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

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

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

"I served as Adjunct Professor at the Charleston School of Law in the summer of 2008. I taught one class: Advanced Evidence. It was a part-time position. The dates of the class were every Tuesday and Thursday evening from 6 to 8 from May 27 to July 17, with the exam on July 24. My supervisor was the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Nancy Zisk, who no longer holds that position. For this work, I was paid a salary and given a per trip expense reimbursement."

Judge Few further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I ran unsuccessfully for the Supreme Court of South Carolina in 2007, 2008 and 2009."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

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, and from time to time I schedule events for Duke alumni in our area.

The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Few to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission found that Judge Few's approach to legal analysis is that of a scholar, which would assist him in discharging his responsibilities as Chief Judge for the Court of Appeals. They noted his professional demeanor at the Public Hearing, the plans he has for advancing the Court of Appeals, and his able service on the Circuit Court for the past nine years.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Few qualified and nominated him for election as Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Huff was born in 1949. He is 60 years old and a resident of North Augusta, South Carolina. Judge Huff 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 Huff.

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

Judge Huff testified he has not:

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

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

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

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

Judge Huff described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                             Date

(a)   Annual Judicial Conference:   08/04, 8/05, 9/06, 8/07, 8/20/08;

(b)   N.C./S.C. Appellate Judge's Conference           08/22/07;

(c)   Mini Summit on Justice for Children             08/23/06;

(d)   Hot Topics in Civil Law                     06/18/04;

(e)   14th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C.             11/19/04;

(f)   S.C. Assoc. for Justice Annual Convention         08/07/09;

(g)   S.C. Bar Convention                   01/05; 01/06.

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

(a)   I have lectured at S.C. Bar CLE Programs covering the topics of appellate practice in the areas of criminal law, civil law and matters of appeals before summary courts and civil court;

(b)   I participated as a Faculty member for a week long program of training for U.S. Attorneys at the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina. The course was entitled Appellate Advocacy, course number 01-01AA1.

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

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Huff 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.
(4)   Character:

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

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

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

"I was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1978. I served from 1978 to 1996. I timely filed all required reports and disclosures."

(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

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

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

"1976-96: I started a solo law practice with an emphasis in domestic law, workers compensation and civil/tort/personal injury matters. In 1990 I was selected by Aiken Electric Cooperative to serve as their corporate counsel. I represented them in the Circuit Court and Supreme Court until I was elected to the Court of Appeals."

Judge Huff reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

(a)   Federal:   Twice;

(b)   State:       Twice a month.

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

(a)   Civil:       30%;

(b)   Criminal:   15%;

(c)   Domestic:   55%.

Judge Huff reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

(a)   Jury:       85%;

(b)   Non-jury:   15%.

Judge Huff provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Huff's account of his five most significant litigated matters prior to his service on the bench:

(a)   City of Aiken v. Aiken Electric Co-operative, Inc., 305 S.C. 466, 409 S.E. 2d 403. This case addressed the constitutional and statutory implications of territorial assignment of service area and subsequent municipal annexations into the co-ops assigned service territory.

(b)   Army Navy Bingo, Garrison No. 2196 v. Plowden, 281 S.C. 226, 314 S.E. 2d 339, S.C. This case challenged the imposition of a constitutional three year residency requirement to obtain or renew an operator's license which would constitute a taking of the parties business and ability to earn a living.

(c)   Barnes v. Barnes, 276 S.C. 519, 280 S.E. 2d 538, S.C. This case addressed the statutory interpretation of 20-3-10(5) 1976 which addresses the requirement of separation without co-habitation before a divorce is permitted. The implications of the decision was not to permit parties to remain under the same roof but in different bedrooms and establish the necessary separation factor

(d)   Berry v. Ianuario, 286 S.C. 522, 335 S. E. 2d 250. This case touched on the issue of waiving adoptive home studies.

(e)   Nguyen v. Uniflex Corp., 312 S.C. 417, 440 S.E. 2d 887. This litigation touched on the issues of national standards for storing toxic materials, municipal codes and national and regional building codes. There was also an issue of storage of toxic materials adjacent to leased premises of the plaintiff.

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

"By way of explanation and response to this question I wish to inform the Commission that I have served on the Court of Appeals for the last thirteen years and my Law office was closed in 1996. I deeply regret that I am unable to provide copies of any briefs due the lengthy lapse of time. I would draw the Commissions attention to the case cited above by way of a response to this question."

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

"I do not have access to my files anymore in that my office has been closed since 1996 when I was elected to the Court of Appeals. I did represent a number of criminal defendants during my twenty years of practice. The cases ranged from misdemeanors, assault and battery with intent to kill, kidnapping, domestic violence, possession with intent to distribute, failure to stop for a blue light, burglary, breaking and entering, presenting and pointing, criminal sexual conduct, DUI involving death, possession of crack cocaine, ABHAN and trafficking"

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

"South Carolina Court of Appeals, elected 1996. This court has statewide jurisdiction over all courts, agencies, commissions and administrative law courts and serves to correct errors of law. We can hear all appeals except those matters exclusively reserved to the Supreme Court."

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

(a)   Mozingo & Wallace Architects, LLP v. Patricia Grand, 379 S.C. 478, 666 S.E. 2d 267 (Ct. App. 2008), cert. denied (June 6, 2009);

(b)   Cox v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, 356 S.C. 468, 589 S.E. 2d 766 (Ct. App. 2003) cert. denied (Apr 07,2005);

(c)   Straight v. Goss, Op. No. 4532 (S.C. Ct. App. Filed April 16, 2009) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 17 at 71);

(d)   State v. Paige, 375 S.C. 643, 654 S.E. 2d 300 (Ct. App. 2007) (cert. denied 3/5/09;

(e)   State v. Bennett, 375 S.C. 165, 650 S.E. 2d 490 (Ct. App. 2007) (cited by Sup Ct. in State v. McGrier, Op. No. 26489 ( S.C. Sup. Ct. refilled June 23, 2008) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 26 at 24).

Judge Huff further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I ran for a seat on the Court of Appeals in 1993, but lost in a two-candidate race by seven votes."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

Judge Huff is married to Patricia Dale Huff. He has one child.

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

(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Aiken County Bar.

Judge Huff further reported:

"Over the past five years I have served on the Curtis Baptist School Board. During my service I served two terms as the Board Chairman and two terms as the Vice Chairman. I also served on the Finance committee primarily to assist in the preparation of budgets and make presentations to the full board concerning budgetary matters. The school had an enrollment from 180 to 300 students in grades 1 thru 12."

The Midlands Citizens Committee found Judge Huff "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. They also stated, "Judge Huff is an asset to our State and the committee truly appreciates his honorable service to our state on the Court of Appeals. We believe he is eminently qualified to be the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and we are confident he would continue his service to the Court of Appeals and our state in a most outstanding manner."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that, as the most senior judge on the Court of Appeals, Judge Huff has a good grasp of the appellate process.   They noted that he is known as a hard worker and a stabilizing influence for the Court.
(12)   Conclusion:

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

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Lee was born in 1958. She is 51 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Lee provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984. She was also admitted to the Texas Bar in 1982 and to the Louisiana Bar in 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Lee reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Lee testified she has not:

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Lee described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                           Date

(a)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 01/23/04;

(b)   Annual Civil Law Update                     01/23/04;

(c)   Matthew J. Perry: The Man,                   04/23/04;

(d)   S.C. Circuit Judges Conference                 05/05/04;

(e)   S.C. Judicial Conference                     08/19/04;

(f)   Annual Civil Law Update                     01/21/05;

(g)   Annual Criminal law Update                   01/21/05;

(h)   Circuit Judges Conference                     05/11/05;

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

(j)   ABCs of Effective & Ethical Trial Practice         10/14/05;

(k)   Annual Civil Law Update                     01/28/06;

(l)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 01/28/06;

(m)   Circuit Judges' Conference                   05/10/06;

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

(o)   Annual Civil Law Update                     01/21/07;

(p)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 01/21/07;

(q)   Circuit Judges' Conference                   05/14/07;

(r)   Annual Civil Law Update                     01/25/08;

(s)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 01/25/08;

(t)   Annual Judicial Conference                   08/20/08;

(u)   American Bar Association Meeting               08/2008;

(v)   Lunch and Learn                           10/29/08;

(w)   SCDTAA                               11/13/08;

(x)   Circuit Judges Conference                       05/09.

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

(a)   JCLE - Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (August 1985) Topic: Settling the Family Court Record on Appeal;

(b)   Basic Federal Court Practice (September 1985) Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local Rules;

(c)   Drafting Criminal Laws under the Sentencing Classification Act (November 1993);

(d)   Bridge the Gap (May 1996, March 1997, May 1997, March 1998, May 1998) Topic:   Practice Tips for the Administrative Law Judge Division;

(e)   1996 That Was the Year That Was (January 1997) Topic: 1996 Update for the Administrative Law Judge Division;

(f)   Rules, Rules, Rules: S.C. Practice & Procedure Update (March 1998) Topic: Rules of the Administrative Law Judge Division;

(g)   South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving into the Millennium (May 1998);

(h)   Tips from the Bench III (December 2002);

(i)   Women Lawyers in the New Millennium (April 2003) Topic: Ethics - Circuit Court;

(j)   S.C. Black Lawyers Summit & Retreat (October 2004) Topic: S.C. Judiciary on Civility & Ethics (panel discussion);

(k)   ABC's of Effective and Ethical Practice (October 2005) Topic: Enhancing Persuasion in Trial: Civil and Criminal Advocacy in S.C. (panel discussion);

(l)   South Carolina Black Lawyers Summit & Retreat (September 2006) Topic: Tips from the Bench (Panel discussion);

(m)   South Carolina Municipal Association (December 2006) Topic: Ethics - Circuit Court.

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

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

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

Judge Lee reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

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

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

(a)   1982-83 Law Clerk, Honorable Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

(b)   1983-84 Law Clerk, Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., South Carolina Court of Appeals.

(c)   1984-89 Associate, McNair Law Firm, P.A., primarily litigation in contract or consumer related issues. Last two years practice labor and employment related litigation.

(d)   1989-94 Staff Counsel, S.C. Legislative Council, drafting legislation and amendments for members of the General Assembly in the areas of transportation, crime, corrections and prisons, and education.

(e)   1994-1999. Administrative Law Judge presiding over administrative hearing relating to insurance, environmental permitting, alcoholic beverages, wages, taxes, video poker, bingo, appeals from occupational licensing boards, and hearings on regulations promulgated by certain state agencies.

(f)   1999-present. Circuit Court Judge. Court of general jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters. Appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate, and probate cases.

Judge Lee reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her service on the bench as follows:

(a)   federal:   (1984-89)     90%;

(b)   state:                         10%.

Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her service on the bench as follows:
Years 1984-89

(a)   civil:                   80%;

(b)   criminal:           20%;

(c)   domestic:   handled 2-3 appointed cases.

Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her service on the bench as follows:
Years 1984-89

(a)   jury:   10% cases were resolved by motion or through settlement;

(b)   non-jury:[not answered].

Judge Lee provided that, prior to her service on the bench, she most often served as associate counsel on cases that were tried.

The following is Judge Lee's account of her four most significant litigated matters prior to her service on the bench:

(a)   Atkinson v. Citicorp Acceptance Co. (Federal district court) - case decided on summary judgment motion involving the Fair Debt Collection Act, then a new federal statute.

(b)   McClain v. Westinghouse (Federal district court) - employment law case involving sex discrimination, sex harassment, equal pay, as well as other employment claims. Case decided on summary judgment.

(c)   State of South Carolina v. Norris Stroman (state criminal case) - defendant (with limited intelligence) charged with murder and allegedly confessed. Jury acquitted.

(d)   Valerie Smith v. Kroger (Federal district court) - either a slander or malicious prosecution case resulting from shoplifting.

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

(a)   Purdie v. Smalls, 293 S.C. 216, 359 S.E.2d 306 (Ct. App. 1987);

(b)   Hooten v. Carolina Treatment Center, Inc. 200 S.C. 37, 386 S.E.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1989). I was not the lead attorney;

(c)   Condon v. Best View Cablevision, Inc., 292 S.C. 117, 355 S.E.2d 7 (Ct. App. 1987). I was not the lead attorney;

(d)   Davis v. U.S. Steel Corp., 779 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1985) on brief only.

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

"I did not handle any criminal appeals while in private practice. However, as a circuit court judge I have presided over appeals from magistrate and municipal court involving criminal matters."

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

Elected by the General Assembly in February 1994 to the office of Administrative Law Judge which is a quasi-judicial function within the executive branch of government. Jurisdiction is limited to fact finding within the context of administrative hearings involving taxes, licensing, permitting and rate-making. Act as an appellate body in matters involving occupational licensing and foster care licensing, among others. Conduct public hearings and decide the reasonableness and need for regulations promulgated by certain state agencies.

Elected by the General Assembly in February 1999 to Circuit Court.   Re-elected in February 2002 and February 2008. Court of general jurisdiction covering civil and criminal matters. Also appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate, and probate cases.

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

(a)   Ward v. South Carolina, 98-CP-40-4069, reversed 538 S.E.2d 245 (S.C. 2000).

Ward, a federal retiree, filed suit against the state seeking to have declared unconstitutional statutes enacted providing state retirees a "rebate" on income taxes in response to Davis v. Michigan. The State filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was granted on the basis that Ward failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue and the Administrative Law Judge Division. The Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that exhaustion of remedies was not required when the sole issue for determination involves the constitutionality of a statute. Neither the Department of Revenue nor the ALJD has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute.

(b)   Collins Holding Co. v. Defibaugh, Ct. App. reversed on one issue, 2007 WL 1148140.

Collins Holding Co. filed suit seeking damages against a competitor for a variety of claims. The issue was whether the Defendant engaged in unfair trade practices for allowing certain video game machines that employed a "reflexive payout" feature. A number of other issues were raised by Collins on appeal.

(c)   Sloan v. Greenville County, et al., 99-CP-23-4464.

Mr. Sloan sued Greenville County seeking to declare its action unlawful in connection with the procured construction of the family Court Building Expansion. The County sought dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Mr. Sloan did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The decision found that Sloan had standing to bring the action against the County as a taxpayer when the legislative acts sought to be enjoined are unlawful.

(d)   Jordan, et al v. Holt, et al., 96-CP-26-3792, reversed by Ct. App. ; Ct. App. reversed by S. Ct., 362 S.C. 201, 608 S.E.2d 129 (2005).

This was a non-jury trial in partners in a failed restaurant venture sought dissolution of the partnership, an accounting of the assets and claims for damages from the operation of the business. The trial lasted one week and involved voluminous documents, checks, records and photographs.

(e)   Cooke v. Palmetto Health Alliance, affirmed by Ct. App., 367 S.C. 167, 624 S.E.2d 439 (Ct. App. 2005).

Workers' Compensation case in which Mr. Cooke sought to receive benefits under the Act. The legal issue was whether Cooke was a statutory employee.

Judge Lee further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

Candidate for Circuit Court At Large Seat 10. Election in April 1997, withdrew two days before the election. Seat won by James R. Barber, III. Also candidate for Circuit Court At Large, Seats 1 and 7. Withdrew candidacy when Commission nominated me as a candidate for Seat 11 in February 1999.

Candidate for Court of Appeals, Seat 1, Seat 3, and Seat 6. Elections occurred in 2003 and 2004. In all cases I was found qualified by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, but I was not nominated. In Spring 2008 I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals Seat 3. I was nominated by the Commission but withdrew my candidacy before the election.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children.

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

(a)   American Bar Association (1985-90; 2006 - present);

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association;

(d)   Richland County Bar Association;

(e)   Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (July 1987-June 1988);

(f)   Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances & Discipline (1987-89);

(g)   National Conference of State Trial Judges Delegate (2007 to present).

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

(a)   Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc. (1987 - present)

President 1994-98

Vice President 1993-94

Corresponding Secretary 1990-93;

(b)   Columbia Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (1992 - 2009)

Parliamentarian 1995-97, 2001-2007;

(c)   St. Peter's Catholic School Board (1993-97)

Chairperson 1995-96;

(d)   St. Peter's Catholic Church Parish Pastoral Council (1998-2001);

(e)   Honored by the S.C. Chapter of the National Association of Bench and Bar Spouses in April 1999;

(f)   Leadership South Carolina, Class of 1999.

The Midlands Citizens Committee found Judge Lee "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. They also reported the following summary regarding Judge Lee: "Judge Lee is truly an asset to our state's judiciary. Our committee sincerely believes that she is most eminently qualified to be the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and we are confident she would continue to serve our state in a most outstanding manner."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Lee's intellect and her understanding of the "team" concept would serve her well as Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals. They noted her good reputation for the past ten years as a Circuit Court Judge.
(12)   Conclusion:

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

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 as the Chief Judge for the Court of Appeals.

Judge Pieper was born in 1961. He is 48 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 not made any campaign expenditures.

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;

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

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:
Conference/ CLE Name                           Date

(a)   Civil Law Update                       01/23/2009;

(b)   Criminal Law Update                     01/23/2009;

(c)   Judicial Conference                       08/20/2008;

(d)   Tips from the Bench                     02/15/2008;

(e)   Criminal Law Update                     01/25/2008;

(f)   Law Clerk and Staff Code of Conduct Seminar     12/19/2007;

(g)   Judicial Conference                       08/22/2007;

(h)   Criminal Law Update                     01/26/2007;

(i)   Civil Law Update                       01/26/2007;

(j)   Judicial Conference                       08/23/2006;

(k)   Criminal Law Update                     01/27/2006;

(l)   Civil Law Update                       01/27/2006;

(m)   Tips from the Bench                     12/09/2005;

(n)   Judicial Conference                       08/24/2005;

(o)   Criminal Law Update                     01/21/2005;

(p)   Civil Law Update                       01/21/2005;

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

(r)   Judicial Conference                       08/19/2004;

(s)   Criminal Law Update                     01/23/2004;

(t)   Civil Law Update                       01/23/2004.

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

(a)   I have lectured on the law before the Masters-in-Equity regarding civil procedure.

(b)   I also have made presentations to the Magistrates and Municipal Judges on Judicial Ethics.

(c)   I prepared a "Tips from the Bench" seminar for a few years for the S.C. Bar that covers every level of court in S.C. I have been asked to do it again in 2010 but I have not yet committed to it.

(d)   In addition, I am an adjunct professor of law at the Charleston School of Law. I have taught courses in Criminal Law, Advanced Criminal Law and Equity.

(e)   I have also spoken on Ethics during the same law school's professionalism series.

Judge Pieper reported that he has not published any books 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 the following regarding his Martindale-Hubbell rating, "To my knowledge, I am not listed, reason unknown."
(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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 with administrative oversight of sixteen offices and the budget for each office.

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 nonjury 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.

June 1996 - October 2007. Resident Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit; presided 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 completed eleven years as circuit judge.

November 2007 - present; Court of Appeals Judge, Seat 7. As previously indicated, I actually was performing the duties of circuit judge and appellate judge for a few months before I started in November 2007. As an appellate judge, I preside over cases with a panel of judges, or with the court en banc, on a variety of civil, domestic, criminal and administrative matters on appeal from the lower courts and administrative agencies.

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

(a)   civil:       90%;

(b)   criminal:   5%;

(c)   domestic:   5%.

Judge Pieper reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

(a)   jury:       0%;

(b)   non-jury:   100%.

Judge Pieper provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as associate counsel.

The following is Judge Pieper's account of his most significant litigated matters prior to his service on the bench:

"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 offices:

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 with administrative responsibility for sixteen offices.

June 1993 - June 1996; Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge; appointed position. 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 nonjury 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.

June 1996 - October 2007. Resident Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit; elected by the General Assembly. Presided over all civil and criminal matters and appeals within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. I was also assigned on occasion to serve as an acting Supreme Court Justice.

November 2007 to present; Court of Appeals Judge, Seat 7. As previously indicated, I actually was performing the duties of circuit judge and appellate judge for a few months before I started in November 2007. As an appellate judge, I preside over cases with a panel of judges, or with the court en banc, on a variety of civil, domestic, criminal and administrative matters on appeal from the lower courts and administrative agencies.

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

(a)   Mr. T. v. Mrs. T., 378 S.C. 127, 662 S.E.2d 413 (2008). This case involved a very significant issue involving the law of equity, the rules of civil procedure, and preclusion principles. This case has been brought up at conferences as being significant as it works through prior precedent to address a gap in the law. In this case, a few years after divorce, a father alleged he learned by DNA testing that he was not the father of the children and contended it was inequitable to make him continue to pay child support. Certiorari was denied by the S.C. Supreme Court on Feb. 20, 2009.

(b)   State v. Christopher Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 647 S.E.2d 144 (2007). This was an interesting but tragic case involving a 12 year old who killed his two grandparents. The primary defense was a "Zoloft" defense. The case was transferred from family court and received world-wide attention and coverage as it raised many issues relating to the juvenile justice system and sentencing. The S.C. Supreme Court affirmed the decision and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept it for review.

(c)   State v. Harvin, 345 S.C. 190, 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. Reid, 2009 WL 1851327 (Ct App. June 25, 2009); attempted criminal sexual conduct case. This case deals with contemporary issues in the criminal justice system as it involves the use of an internet chat room. The case focuses upon the primarily undeveloped law in the area of attempted crimes.

(e)   Capital City Insurance Company v. BP Staff, Inc., 382 S.C. 92, 674 S.E.2d 524 (Ct. App. 2009). I think this case is a good case involving the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the interplay between a pending, related administrative proceeding and an ongoing circuit court case.

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

"Adjunct Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law, 2005 to present. I teach criminal law, advanced criminal law, as well as equity and equitable Remedies. The Dean of Academic Affairs is my supervisor."

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; however, I withdrew my name from consideration."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

Judge Pieper is not married. He does not have any 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 was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

(a)   As indicated, I involve myself with educational organizations and I am on advisory boards at the Charleston School of Law and the College of Charleston. Because of my judicial position, I have generally avoided other civic activities so that I would not run afoul of the judicial code prohibition on judges in regard to fundraising activities. I have not listed anything previously mentioned.

(b)   By appointment of the Supreme Court, I do serve as a member of the Commission on CLE and Specialization. This commission oversees the certification of members of the Bar to specialty practice areas and also certifies courses which qualify for continuing legal education. We have recently been designated by the Supreme Court to oversee the new lawyer mentoring program.

Judge Pieper further reported:

I think one of my strongest points is that I have been involved in so many different levels of the court system. My work ethic is well-known by the Bar. Having been a magistrate, master-in-equity, special circuit judge, circuit judge, court of appeals judge, as well as acting Supreme Court Justice, I have a great appreciation for the types of matters before these courts that would be useful as chief judge of the Court of Appeals. I also worked in the federal court system for a few years. As chief magistrate, I was responsible for administrative and budgetary oversight of sixteen different magistrate offices and the personnel associated with each office. I immediately set out to come up with forms that made judicial tasks much easier for everyone involved to understand and to make sure everything was covered. I worked hard to find office locations convenient to the public. We also set out to streamline the system and make it more efficient, including the creation of a central traffic court, which I am told is very successful.

I have always been innovative, diligent and imaginative. I am also technology oriented in the operation of my office. I feel these qualities are very useful as the judiciary strives to adjust to increasing caseloads. I feel that I have a broad working knowledge of the court system and courtroom, having spent a great many years presiding over court. As an appeals court judge, I was successful in requesting and getting our courtrooms wired for internet access. I have made other suggestions adopted by the chief judge. I wish to experiment with videoconferencing at the appellate level, and have a great interest in e-filing for the benefit of the public and the court. I have strong writing and communication skills, and have offered my colleagues my private thoughts since I have been on the court; several of my colleagues have thanked me for the extra time and attention I give to the area of legal writing.

As a circuit judge, I was exposed to a wide range of matters, including hundreds of appeals from the magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as from administrative agencies. We generally drafted and produced most of our substantive orders and I think this extensive legal writing experience is very useful as an appellate judge. I was also assigned as chief administrative judge on numerous occasions and worked very diligently and closely with clerk of court personnel to achieve various objectives. I helped the clerk of court reduce costs and improve efficiency. All of my judicial experience would be invaluable as it relates to the disposition of matters on the appellate court.

In addition, my passion for teaching at the law school reflects my devotion to the academic side of the law, which I hope will lend itself well to the appellate process. I believe the chief judge should be a dedicated and devoted individual with a passion for the law and the court. As previously indicated, by appointment of the Supreme Court, I also serve as a member of the Commission on CLE and Specialization. This commission oversees the certification of members of the Bar to specialty practice areas and also certifies courses which qualify for continuing legal education. We recently have been designated by the Supreme Court to oversee the new lawyer mentoring program. The duties of this commission closely parallel my views about quality, skills, and dedication to the study of law. I am eager to work in the mentoring program as we implement ways to assist new lawyers in the practice of law as a profession.

Finally, throughout my entire career, I have always realized that there is room for improvement and the ability to grow as a judge. I am a much different judge than I was in my earlier years. I have tried to adjust and refine my skills as I have received feedback over the years and as I have learned new techniques and approaches from conferences, colleagues, as well as judicial evaluations. I am not afraid of criticism and I am the first person to admit error if error occurs, or if something can be done better. When I last ran for the Court of Appeals, I was humbled by the finding of the Lowcountry Citizen's Committee that I was "eminently qualified and a most highly regarded candidate," as well as the finding by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission that I have "raised the bar in this State on outstanding judicial temperament". These findings motivated me to work even harder since my last election and I hope to continue to work hard to continue improving as a judge.

As for being chief judge if elected, I think my ability to achieve and my grasp of the future of the court system would serve us well. Fortunately, we are blessed with a wonderful clerk of court and chief staff attorney, both of whom are doing a great job. They have done a great job in hiring excellent staff and the role of chief judge is much easier because of this fact. Further, the current chief judge will leave the court in excellent shape through her involvement and guidance over many years. I see my role more as an idea person, administrator and problem solver. I tend to reach out to capable individuals like those persons I have mentioned in order to achieve success in anything we may attempt together as an institution. Further, I would solicit the participation, support and comments of all of my colleagues, staff, and the Chief Justice before attempting any changes to make sure I have considered all important aspects of an issue.

The Lowcountry Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Pieper "Well-Qualified" for all nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Pieper's outstanding grasp of legal issues was demonstrated by his stellar performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure test, which would serve him well as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. They noted that his enthusiasm, his two years of service on the Court of Appeals, as well as his total of 20 years service on the bench and his understanding of how technology can benefit the courtroom will assist the court in moving forward.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Pieper qualified and nominated him for election as Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Short was born in 1947. He is 63 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Judge Short provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

Judge Short 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 Short reported that he has made $174.18 in campaign expenditures for postage and stationery.

Judge Short testified he has not:

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

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

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

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

Judge Short described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                           Date

(a)   4th Annual Judicial Symposium                 07/11/08;

(b)   Judicial Conference                         08/20/08;

(c)   Post-Conviction Relief Seminar                 12/05/08;

(d)   7th Annual Civil Law Update                 01/23/08;

(e)   24th Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update           01/23/08;

(f)   N.C./S.C. Appellate Judges' Conference           03/01/07;

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

(h)   The Law Clerk & Staff Code of Conduct           12/19/07;

(i)   4th Annual Civil Law Update                 01/27/06;

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

(k)   EIJ/Economics Institute for Judges               03/20/06;

(l)   NJC/Essential Skills for the Appellate             07/01/06;

(m)   NYUSCP/Appellate Judges Seminar             07/10/06;

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

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

(p)   NJC/South Carolina Judges/Journalists           09/28/06;

(q)   Crawford: A Hearsay Chimera                 04/15/05;

(r)   Post Conviction Relief Seminar                 06/09/05;

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

(t)   Ethics 2005 Seminar                       09/21/05;

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

(v)   Appellate/Federal Judges Conference           05/26-27/05;

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

(x)   2nd Annual Civil Law Update                 01/23/04;

(y)   SCCA Judicial Conference                   08/19/04;

(z)   Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE                   07/28/04;

(aa)   Judicial Oath of Office                     08/19/04.

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

(a)   He has made presentations to Circuit Court Judges on the Court of Appeals at the Circuit Court Judges' Conference.

(b)   He spoke on the topic Case File Development and Review, A View from the Judiciary at the South Carolina Solicitors' Conference.

(c)   He served as a Group Facilitator with the faculty for a General Jurisdiction Course at the National Judicial College/Reno, Nevada for new Judges leading group discussions four hours each day on a wide variety of legal topics.

(d)   He was instructor for a Seminar for South Carolina Legal Secretaries Association on the topic of Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Short 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 Short reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV.

Judge Short reported the following military service:

U.S. Army, June 1968; entered active duty August 1971; discharged from active duty November 1971; served S.C. National Guard until 1973; discharged U.S. Army Reserve 1974; highest rank attained was 1st Lieutenant; Present Status, Inactive Reserve; Honorably Discharged as Captain.

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

(a)   South Carolina House of Representatives, elected, 1982-91;

(b)   Chester County Airport Commission, appointed, 1978-80;

(c)   Chester County Attorney, appointed, 1980-82.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

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

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

I began the general practice of law in November 1971, in Chester, South Carolina, with Mr. Fred H. Strickland and Mr. E. K. Hardin, who later became Probate Judge of Chester County.

In late 1972, I became a partner in the firm and in approximately June 1973, Mr. Strickland was tragically killed in a house fire and I became senior partner at the age of 26. Mr. William C. Keels graduated from law school in June 1973, and he and I began practicing law together at that time.

I was honored to have been elected to the South Carolina Circuit Court At-Large Seat #8 on February 1, 1991, and served continuously until February 1999, when I was elected Resident Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit.

I was elected to the South Carolina Court of Appeals in May 2004.

Judge Short reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

(a)   Federal:   Occasionally;

(b)   State:       Regularly.

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

(a)   Civil:         20%;

(b)   Criminal:     50%;

(c)   Domestic:     30%.

Judge Short reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

(a)   Jury:         95%;

(b)   Non-jury:       5%.

Judge Short provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel, and occasionally chief counsel.

The following is Judge Short's account of his five most significant litigated matters prior to his service on the bench:

(a)   Walter Neal and Industrial Chemical Company, Inc. v. J. Simpson Darby, L.H. Schwieterman, John Archie Lucas, Donald B. Murray, Marion M. Thomas, and J. F. Martin, as members of the Chester County Council and the County of J. F. Martin, as members of the Chester County Council and the County of Chester (1984) Court of Appeals Opinion #0207 filed June 22, 1984. I was Chester County Attorney in 1980 and the Chester County Council was in the process of adopting an ordinance pertaining to the handling and storage of hazardous chemicals in Chester County. Mr. Neal brought Suit in Common Pleas Court to question the constitutionality of the ordinance and the county counter-claimed on the ground that Mr. Neal's landfill site was a public nuisance. The case was significant both at the trial level and the appellate level, because a small rural county was attempting to protect its citizens and their environment from the disposal of out-of-state hazardous waste. The trial judge and the Court of Appeals both found that the landfill constituted a public nuisance by virtue of its location and upheld the permanent injunction to prevent further disposal of hazardous chemical waste at the site.

(b)   Chester County Hospital and Nursing Center v. J. F. Martin, Simpson Darby, John Lucas, Marion M. Thomas, Don Murray, Carlisle Roddey, Lowell Schweiterman, individually and as members of the Chester County, and the Chester County Council (1984) South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion #22053 filed March 6, 1984. In 1981, the Chester County Council was in the process of adopting an ordinance to increase the size of the Chester County Hospital Board and to provide that Council would appoint said Board members. This Board had previously been created by a local act of the General Assembly in 1947 which provided that vacancies would be filled by a two-thirds vote of the remaining Board members themselves. The Board petitioned the Circuit Court for an injunction to prevent the Council from enacting the ordinance. After an extensive hearing on the matter, which included the testimony of many respected leaders of the community such as U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Hemphill, deceased, the lower Court issued a permanent injunction on the grounds that the County was attempting to exercise power beyond its limitations in violations of Section 4-9-170, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended. The South Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case and vacated the injunction. The Court stated that it was well recognized that a Court could not restrain by injunction, the exercise of legislative power by counties. The Court cited 43A C.J.S., which states that restraining power of a Court should be directed against enforcement rather than passage of ordinances. The case is very significant because the Court upheld the County's actions which were undertaken because of the Home Rule Act.

(c)   Vera B. Lawson, Executrix of the Estate of Robert Smith Lawson, deceased v. Bowaters Carolina Corporation, U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals #77-8320, Order filed October 31, 1977. In this case, I represented the Estate of a painter who was killed while painting the Defendant's plant in Rock Hill, South Carolina. The Plaintiff's husband was employed by Robert's Paint Company, which had a contract with Bowaters to paint their facility. The Plaintiff's husband was killed when an employee of Bowaters drove a forklift into the scaffold supports, thereby knocking the deceased to the ground. A death claim against Robert's Paint Company was filed for Workman's Comp benefits before the South Carolina Industrial Commission and the claim was approved. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against Bowaters Carolina Corporation in U.S. District Court. The Defendant moved for Summary Judgment contending that under the provisions of the S.C. Workman's Compensation Act, the Plaintiff's deceased husband was the "statutory employee" of the Defendant, and therefore, the Plaintiff's sole remedy would be under the provisions of that Act. After considering the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, Judge Hemphill issued his Order on September 15, 1977, in which he denied the Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered the case be calendared for Jury trial. The Defendant petitioned the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal Judge Hemphill's Order, basing its argument on the grounds that there was a conflict between interpretation of controlling State law between the United States Supreme Court and the South Carolina Supreme Court. They denied the Defendant's petition and the case was later settled. This case was significant because it involved the question of the definition of a statutory employee under the South Carolina Workman's Comp Act.

(d)   Canzadia White, as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard C. Carter, deceased v. Holsum Bakery, Inc. (1972) This was a wrongful death case in which all of the witnesses of the Plaintiff's accident were the deceased's minor children. A lot of preparation was required to ensure that the minor children would be qualified by the Court to testify. A verdict was returned for the Plaintiff, and it has been said that this was, at that time, the highest jury verdict returned in Chester County for the wrongful death of an African American.

(e)   Crystal J. Harmon, Committee for Benjamin Joseph Harmon, an Incompetent v. Aegis Corporation, Long Mill Rubber Company and Ryder Truck Rental Company U.S. District Court, Greenville Division, Complaint. filed August 1, 1985. The Plaintiff, Benjamin J. Harmon, age 21, suffered a totally and permanently disabling brain injury on July 14, 1983, when the automobile he was driving was struck by the Defendant, who had disregarded a traffic control device. I began representing the Plaintiff shortly after his accident, and successfully negotiated an agreement that the carrier would pay for immediate medical care. This was medically significant because it is essential that a person with a brain injury receive extensive rehabilitation immediately after the injury to maximize potential improvement. During my representation, I traveled rather extensively and learned that there are not many facilities in the United States that can adequately care for those with head injuries. A jury was drawn for trial, however, approximately one week before the trial was scheduled to begin, the case was settled in 1986. It was a personally significant case in that it was the largest settlement I ever obtained and required more preparation than any other legal matter I ever handled.

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

(a)   Walter Neal and Industrial Chemical Company, Inc. v. J. Simpson Darby, L.H. Schwieterman, John Archie Lucas, Donald B. Murray, Marion M. Thomas, and J. F. Martin as members of the Chester County Council and the County of Chester S.C. Court of Appeals, June 22, 1984; 282 S.C. 277; 318 S.E.2d 18.

(b)   Chester County Hospital and Nursing Center v. J. F. Martin, Simpson Darby, John Lucas, Marion M. Thomas, Don Murray, Carlisle Roddey, Lowell Schweiterman, individually and as members of the Chester County Council, and the Chester County Council S.C. Court of Appeals; March 6, 1984; 281 S.C. 25; 314 S.E.2d 25.

(c)   Thomas Beckham v. Sara Kay B. Short S.C. Supreme Court; and the S.C. Court. of Appeals, June 5, 1989, and January 25, 1988; 380 S.E. 2d 826; 298 S.C. 348; 365 S.E.2d 42; 294 S.C. 415.

(d)   Patricia Moore Lucas v. Ernest Wendell Lucas S.C. Supreme Court; May 9, 1983; 302 S.E. 2d. 863; S.C.

(e)   Willie Mack Thomas Sr. and Naomi F. Thomas v. George Wilson, individually and d/b/a Palmetto Mobile Homes S.C. Court of Appeals; March 9, 1984; Memorandum Opinion No. 84-MO-007.

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

"I have been serving on the Bench since July 1991, and have not practiced law since that time. I handled a number of criminal cases while practicing law, but I do not recall any of the cases being appealed to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals. I do recall several criminal appeals from the Magistrate Court to the Circuit Court, but I do not recall the names of the individual Defendants at this time."

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

(a)   July 1991-February 1999; South Carolina Circuit Court at Large, Seat   #8;

(b)   February 1999-June 2004; Resident Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit;

(c)   July 2004-Present; South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat #1.

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

(a)   Cannon v. SCDPPPS, 361 S.C. 425, 604 S.E.2d 709 (Ct. App. 2004); 371 S.C. 581, 641 S.E.2d 429 (2007)

(b)   Gillman v. City of Beaufort, 368 S.C. 24, 627 S.E.2d 746 (Ct. App.   2006);

(c)   Lukich v. Lukich, 368 S.C. 47, 627 S.E.2d 754 (Ct. App. 2006) 379 S.C. 589, 666 S.E.2d 906 (2008);

(d)   Vortex Sports & Entertainment, Inc. v. Ware, 378 S.C. 197, 662 S.E.2d 444 (Ct. App. 2008);

(e)   State v. Singley, 2009 WL 1313243 (Ct. App. 2009).

Judge Short further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I withdrew from the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat #6 on February 4, 2003, after having been selected one of the three candidates selected by the Judicial Merit Selection Committee. In the spring of 2003, I was an unsuccessful candidate for the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat 3. I was reported out of the Screening Committee Qualified but not nominated."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

Judge Short is married to Linda Huffstetler Short. He has two children.

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

(a)   Chester County Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   Appellate Judges Association.

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

(a)   Purity Presbyterian Church; former Deacon, Elder;

(b)   Sertoma International, Life Member;

(c)   Chester Shrine Club;

(d)   Chester Masonic Lodge;

(e)   American Legion;

(f)   Chester Men's Golf Association;

(g)   Phi Delta Phi.

Judge Short further reported:

While I was practicing law, I had the pleasure to serve and to gain valuable experience on the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

The Piedmont Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Short to be "Well-Qualified" for this position, finding the following:

"1.   Constitutional Qualification: well-qualified (a sitting judge)

2.   Ethical Fitness: Well-qualified (no ethical problems noted)

3.   Professional and Academic Ability: Well-qualified (continuing education courses up to date. close to having Jurist Masters Degree from the University of Nevada. Thesis has not been completed).

4.   Character: Well-qualified. No character issues noted.

5.   Reputation: Good (As an attorney, he had the highest professional rating that he could receive from his peers/Martindale-Hubbell rating AV)

6.   Physical Health: Appears to be good. He stated that he was in good health.

7.   Mental Stability: Appears to be mentally stable. He stated that he had no mental issues.

8.   Experience: Well-qualified. Currently a senior S.C. Court of Appeals judge 5 years experience/Circuit Court Judge 13 years experience.

9.   Judicial Temperament: Good (Appears to be cordial, open minded, fair, and a good listener)."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Short has excellent ideas as to his vision as Chief Judge for the Court of Appeals. They noted that he is very experienced, having practiced law for 20 years and having served as a judge on both the Circuit Court (for 13 years) and on the Court of Appeals (for five years), which will assist him as the Chief Judge.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Short qualified and nominated him for election as Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Judge Goodstein was born in 1955. She is 54 years old and a resident of Summerville, South Carolina. Judge Goodstein provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Goodstein reported that she has made $70 in campaign expenditures for typing.

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;

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

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

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

Judge Goodstein described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                             Date

(a)   Conference S.C. Women Lawyers               4/30/04;

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

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

(d)   S.C. Circuit Judges Conference                 5/05/04;

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

(f)   Judicial Oath of Office                       9/19/04;

(g)   Advanced Evidence, National Judicial College         11/15-18/04;

(h)   3rd Annual Civil Law Update                   ____

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

(j)   Circuit Judges Conference                     5/11/05;

(k)   Annual Judicial Conference                   8/20/05;

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

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

(o)   Circuit Court Judicial Conference               5/20/06;

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

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

(r)   S.C. Judges and Journalists                   9/28/06;

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

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

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

(v)   S.C. Circuit Judges Conference                 5/14/08;

(w)   ABA Judicial Division                     8/07/08;

(x)   2008 Judicial Conference                     8/20/08;

(y)   ODC Commission and Attorney Training           10/21/08;

(z)   7th Annual Civil Law Update                 1/23/09;

(aa)   Circuit Conference                         5/6/09.

Judge Goodstein reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
Course/Lecture Name                               Date

(a)   Group Leader National Judicial College -

Advanced Evidence Course                 11/15-18/04;

(b)   Panel Participation Women Lawyers

Conference                               4/30/04;

(c)   SCCA Orientation School for New Judges -

Presentation: Running of a Court                 2004;

(d)   SCCA Orientation School for New Judges -

Presentation: Running of a Court               7/11/05;

(e)   S.C. Young Lawyers Division Panel

Participation                             1/28/06;

(f)   S.C. Women Lawyers Speaker - Ladder to

Success                                 10/13/06;

(g)   Workers Compensation Convention Speaker -

Ethical Considerations in Workers Compensation

Appeals                                   2006;

(h)   Magistrate's School Presentation - Running of

the Court                               3/28/07;

(i)   Jewish Historical Society Panel Discussion

Participant                               4/28/07;

(j)   Magistrate's Orientation School                 3/17/08;

(k)   Orientation School for New Judges               7/9/08;

(l)   Magistrates School Orientation                 7/21/08;

(m)   SCDTAA Joint Meeting                     7/24/08;

(n)   NBI Teacher - What Civil Court Judges Want       9/19/08;

(o)   Orientation School for Magistrates               3/16/09;

(p)   New Magistrates School                     7/31/09;

(q)   Over the past several years, I have helped mentor the following judges who presided with me during their 4-week mentoring process:

1 - Hon. Deadra L. Jefferson

2 - Hon. Michelle Childs

3 - Hon. Carmen Mullen

4 - Hon. Benjamin Culbertson

5 - Hon. Larry Hyman

6 - Hon. R. Knox McMahon

7 - Hon. Kristi L. Harrington

8 - Hon. Edger W. Dickson

9 - Hon. Rob Stillwell.

Judge Goodstein reported with respect to the books and/or articles she has written, "Materials have been published for times I have taught and/or presented. I have not published materials other than those."
(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.

My private practice was a general one which progressed to one which was primarily associated with the representation of plaintiffs, and finally to one which represented both plaintiffs and defendants. In the later years, I practiced more often in the public sector, serving as Dorchester County Attorney, as General Counsel for the Charleston

County Aviation Authority, and as counsel for Dorchester County School District Number Two. I prosecuted cases for the Charleston County Aviation Authority Police Department. In 1997, Goodstein & Goodstein began to represent the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund in cases arising in Charleston and Dorchester Counties. After sixteen years, my law practice had expanded into numerous areas of the private and public sector, representing both plaintiffs and defendants.

Judge Goodstein reported 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 February 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 - 366 S.C. 45, 623 SE2nd 378, 2005: 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 355 S.C.437, 586 S.E2nd 124

(c)   Mary Louise Fairy v. Exxon, Case No: 94-CP-37-118, order denying motion to reconsider and other relief

(d)   State v Kenneth Harry Justus, Indictment 2005-GS-18-1265; order attached.

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

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

"Other than my judicial office, I have not had any outside employment since my election in 1998. For a period, I was on the board of my husband's company, but I am no longer serving in that capacity."

Judge Goodstein further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I ran for the South Carolina Supreme Court twice in 2007, and while found qualified, I was not nominated."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

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;

(c)   Dorchester County 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;

(c)   Judicial Standards Committee Member.

The Lowcountry Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Goodstein to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Goodstein is an excellent judge who is known for being assigned and handling very difficult cases in the Circuit Court.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Goodstein qualified and nominated her for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

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

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

Judge Early was born in 1948. He is 62 years old and a resident of Bamberg, South Carolina. Judge Early provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Early testified he has not:

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

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

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

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

Judge Early described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                           Date

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

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

(c)   2004 S.C. Circuit Judges' Conf             05/05/2004;

(d)   2004 Orientation School for Judges           07/12/2004;

(e)   2004 Judicial Conference                 08/19/2004;

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

(g)   Seminar for Chief Administrative Judges       12/10/2004;

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

(i)   2005 Circuit Judges Conf               05/11-13/2005;

(j)   2005 Annual Judicial Conf               08/24/2005;

(k)   2005 Annual S.C. Solicitor's Conf           09/25/2005;

(l)   SCDTAA Annual Meeting               11/03/2005;

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

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

(o)   Young Lawyers Division                 01/28/2006;

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

(q)   Conflicts and Ethics                     10/12/2006;

(r)   22nd Annual Criminal Law Update           01/26/2007;

(s)   5th Annual Civil Law Update             01/26/2007;

(t)   2007 Annual Judicial Conference           08/22/2007;

(u)   23rd Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update     01/25/2008;

(v)   6th Annual Civil Law Update             01/25/2008;

(w)   2008 Judicial Conference               08/20/2008;

(x)   SCDTAA Annual Meeting               11/13/2008;

(y)   7th Annual Civil Law Update             01/23/2009;

(z)   2009 Annual S.C. Circuit Judges'

Conference                       05/06-08/2009.

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

(a)   I participated in a panel discussion at the Solicitor's Conference on recent legal developments in the area of criminal law.

(b)   I participated in a presentation with other judges at the Charleston School of Law on the professional responsibilities of attorneys before the student body.

(c)   I participated in a panel with other judges at the S.C. Defense Association; topic was "Observation from the Bench"

(d)   While still in practice, I lectured at a number of CLEs on medical malpractice issues.

Judge Early reported that he has published the following:

Bifurcated Punitive Damages Proceedings , D. A. Early, III, Richard B. Ness & Norma A. T. Jett (South Carolina Trial Lawyer, Summer 1998).
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Early 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 Early reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV.

Judge Early reported the following military service:
March 1970 - February 1976, Air National Guard, Sgt., XXX-XX-XXXX, Honorable Discharge.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Early was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.

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

(a)   November 1974 to July 1976 practiced with W. D. Rhoad, Bamberg, S.C. - general practice;

(b)   In July 1976, opened as a sole practitioner. My practice grew and at the time I took the bench I was the senior and founding member of Early & Ness, a firm with three partners, two associates and staff. I served as the County Attorney for over 25 years. My practice covered all general areas with particular emphasis on medical malpractice litigation.

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

"Circuit Judge since 05-01-04; 2nd Circuit, elected."

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

(a)   Estate of James Brown - numerous orders regarding all aspects of the administration of his estate, one order appealed and affirmed by Court of Appeals.
(b)   Graniteville Train Derailment - numerous orders regarding the management of the largest mass tort in our state.
(c)   Herron v. Carmax et al - Quasi class action orders regarding suit over car dealer administrative fees.
(d)   Heritage v. SCANA and Surburban Gas - two week jury trial over the sale of a portion of SCANA's assets - allegations of breach of contract, breach of contract with fraudulent intent and many more issues - Jury returned a multi-million dollar verdict. I issued numerous orders in the case on pretrial issues as well as post trial matters dealing with election of remedies, attorney fees and the amount of the verdict.
(e)   Jamison v. Texaco et al - trial that concluded with a 30 million dollar verdict for a quadriplegic plaintiff- Many orders were issued including orders for summary judgment, orders dealing with complicated agency questions, orders dealing with former justices testifying as experts on interpreting contracts, as well as many post trial orders.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

Judge Early is married to Linda Lee Foy Early. He has two children.

Judge Early reported that he was a member of the following bar association:
South Carolina Bar.

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

Judge Early further reported:

"I consider my election and service since May 1, 2004 as a circuit court judge to be the highest professional honor and privilege that I have ever had. I take all of my duties, requirements and responsibilities with the strongest professional and personal commitment possible. I have attempted to conduct myself professionally and personally in such a manner to avoid any negative reflection on our judicial system. I am 61 years old, have been married for 40 years, practiced law for 30 years, raised 2 boys, was the oldest of 5 children and now have two granddaughters; I use all of the experiences in the above roles to guide my everyday decisions as a judge."

The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Early to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee found in summary that, "Judge Early is an asset to our state judiciary and his service to our state has been outstanding and honorable in every way. He is most eminently qualified to continue to serve on the Circuit Court bench."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that in Judge Early's five years on the Circuit Court bench, he has very capably handled several complex cases.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Early qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

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

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cothran meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Cothran was born in 1952. He is 57 years old and a resident of Manning, South Carolina. Judge Cothran provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cothran.
Judge Cothran 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 Cothran reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Cothran testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Cothran 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 Cothran to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Cothran described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                           Date
(a)   Association of Counties                         7/05;
(b)   Planning and Zoning                         8/23/05;
(c)   S.C. Solicitor's Conference                       9/05;
(d)   Judges Conference   (SCCJC)                   5/16/07;
(e)   General Jurisdiction (NJC)                     7/15/07;
(f)   2007 Annual Judicial Conference (SCCA)           8/22/07;
(g)   2007 Annual Conference (SCSA)                 9/23/07;
(h)   23rd Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update (S.C. Bar)     1/25/08;
(i)   6th Annual Civil Law Update (S.C. Bar)             1/25/08;
(j)   2008 SCTLA Annual Convention (SCAJ)           8/7/08;
(k)   2008 Judicial Conference (SCCA)                 8/20/08;
(l)   2008 S.C. Solicitor's Association (SCSA)             9/28/08;
(m)   7th Annual Civil Law Update (S.C. Bar)             1/23/09;
(n)   24th Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update (S.C. Bar)       1/23/09.
Judge Cothran reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I conducted a course at the Criminal Justice Academy over a 5 year period regarding Auto Theft and Chop Shop Law."
Judge Cothran reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Cothran did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cothran did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cothran has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Cothran 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 Cothran reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV.
Judge Cothran reported that he has held the following public office:

"I was appointed as Chairman to the Election Commissions in 1979 by John C. Land, III, and held that position until 1990. I was appointed as Assistant Solicitor in 1983 and served in that capacity through September 2006."
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Cothran was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

After completing the Bar Examination in 1977, I began working with my father in his practice of Cothran, Chandler and Cothran. In the early 1980's, it became the firm of Cothran and Cothran with Ray E. Chandler, Jr. leaving the firm. Scott Robinson joined the firm after my father was elected Probate Judge for Clarendon County and it became the firm of Cothran and Robinson. My practice consisted of real estate, family, civil and criminal matters. I became the County Attorney in 1979 and served in that capacity through September 2006. In 1983, I was appointed by Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Solicitor of the Third Circuit as the Assistant Solicitor for Clarendon County and was a prosecuting attorney through September 2006. I was elected to the Circuit Bench on February 15, 2006 and began working October 1, 2006 - present.
Judge Cothran reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"On February 15, 2006, I was elected to fill the unexpired term of Thomas W. Cooper, Jr. I began that term October 1, 2006. General civil and criminal jurisdiction throughout the state."
Judge Cothran provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   State of South Carolina vs. Roland Wayne Geddings (2008-GS-14-67);
(b)   Homeowners Services vs. Donald J. Hatcher, etal (2006-CP-43-1688);
(c)   Patrick Booker vs. Maurice Mcnab (2007-CP-31-297);
(d)   Deloris Lesesne vs. Charles H. Powers, et al (07-CP-43-1804);
(e)   Oka Deas Gilliard, et al vs. Darci Strickland, et al (2008-CP-43-1384).
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Cothran's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Cothran is married to Deborah Jean Brakefield Cothran. He has three children.
Judge Cothran reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   Clarendon County Bar Association.
Judge Cothran provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   First Presbyterian Church at Manning Clerk of Session/Chairman Board of Deacons;
(b)   Rotary Club.
Judge Cothran further reported:

"I served with the Solicitor's Office for 23 years where I handled criminal proceedings in Clarendon County. I feel that experience has served me well in my present position."
The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Cothran to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.

(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that Judge Cothran has very ably served as a Circuit Court judge for three years and noted that his legal background gained at the Solicitor's Office has assisted him on the bench.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Cothran qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

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

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Burch meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Burch was born in 1954. He is 55 years old and a resident of Pageland, South Carolina. Judge Burch provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Burch.
Judge Burch 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 Burch reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Burch testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Burch 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 Burch to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Burch described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                             Date
(a)   National Judicial College                   6/5/06-6/8/06;
(b)   Economics Institute for Judges                 3/20-25/06;
(c)   Critical Issues in Toxic Torts Litigation           4/28-29-05;
(d)   20th Annual Criminal Law Update-S.C. Bar         2/21/2005;
(e)   2005 Circuit Court Judges-SCCJC               5/11-13/05;
(f)   Civil & Criminal Law Update                   1/27/06;
(g)   Criminal Evidence                           6/5/06;
(h)   2006 Annual Judicial Conference                 8/23/06;
(i)   2006 Annual S.C. Solicitors                     9/24/06;
(j)   SCDA Annual Meeting                       11/9/06;
(k)   22nd Annual Criminal Law Update                 1/26/07;
(l)   5th Annual Civil Law Update                     1/26/07;
(m)   2008 Judicial Conference                       8/20/08;
(n)   Sporting Clays/Skeet Shoot                   10/30/08;
(o)   SCDA Annual Meeting                     11/13/08;
(p)   7th Annual Civil Law Update                     1/23/09;
(q)   24th Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update             1/23/09.
Judge Burch reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   I have served on judicial panels on several occasions at the S.C. Solicitors Conference
(b)   I have served on judicial panels at the S.C. Defense Attorney's Convention.
Judge Burch reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Burch did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Burch did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Burch has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Burch 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 Burch reported that he is "listed but not rated in Martindale-Hubbell."
Judge Burch reported that he has held the following public offices:
(a)   Chesterfield County Council 1983-87;
(b)   S.C. House of Representatives 1988-91.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Burch was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   Paul M. Burch, Attorney at Law, sole general practice 1980-1991;
(b)   Full partner in the Firm of Henderson, Burch & Spencer 1991;
(c)   Resident Circuit Court Judge for the Fourth Judicial Circuit-1991 to   present.
Judge Burch reported that he has held the following judicial office:
"Resident Judge of the Fourth Circuit - 7/1/1991 until present."
Judge Burch provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   Carolina Power & Light Company vs The City of Bennettsville and Marlboro Electric Cooperative, Inc.; 314 SC137, 442 S.E.2d 177 (1994) (affirmed by Supreme Court);
(b)   Glenn P. Tallent and Christopher C. King vs Solid Waste Recycling Disposal User Fee Appeals Board of the County of Chester County, Chester County Council, Treasurer of Chester County and Chester County Tax Assessor, individually, and in their official capacity; Case Number 94-CP-12-120;
(c)   Chip Knoke as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeremy Ryan Knoke vs The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; 478S.E.2d 256 (1996) (affirmed by Supreme Court);
(d)   Darlington County School District vs Cedric Washington; Case Number: 94-CP-16-134;
(e)   Donald M.Brandt Individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Janice N. Brandt, Deceased vs Elizabeth K. Gooding and Gooding & Gooding, PA; 368 SC 618 (2006).
Judge Burch further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"Unsuccessful candidate for S.C. House of Representatives in 1976 and 1978."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Burch's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Burch is married to Kimberly Thomas Burch. He has three children.
Judge Burch reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   Chesterfield County Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association.
Judge Burch provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Pageland Methodist Church;
(b)   Pageland Volunteer Fire Department;
(c)   Mt. Moriah Masonic Lodge #58;
(d)   Jamil Shrine Temple.
The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Burch to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented on Judge Burch's current leadership role as President of the Circuit Court Judge's Association and his 18 years of excellent service on the Circuit Court bench.
(12)   Conclusion:
The Commission found Judge Burch qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

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

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Goldsmith meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Goldsmith was born in 1942. He is 67 years old and a resident of Lancaster, South Carolina. Judge Goldsmith provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969. He was also admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1970.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Goldsmith.
Judge Goldsmith 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 Goldsmith reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Goldsmith testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Goldsmith 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 Goldsmith to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Goldsmith described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE                                   Date
(a)   S.C. Judicial Conference                                           08/18/04;
(b)   20th Annual Criminal Law Update                                 01/21/05;
(c)   3rd Annual Civil Law Update - Part II                           01/21/05;
(d)   2005 Circuit Court Judges                                           05/11/05;
(e)   2005 Orientation School for Judges                               07/11/05;
(f)   2005 Annual Judicial Conference                                 08/24/05;
(g)   Annual Meeting (SCDTAA)                                         11/03/05;
(h)   4th Annual Civil Law Update                                         01/26/06;
(i)   21st Annual Criminal Law Update                                     01/27/06;
(j)   20th Circuit Court Judges Annual Conference                     05/10/06;
(k)   2006 Annual Judicial Conference                                 08/23/06;
(l)   2006 Annual S.C. Solicitors Conference                           09/24/06;
(m)   22nd Annual Criminal Law Update                               01/26/07;
(n)   5th Annual Civil Law Update                                         01/26/07;
(o)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges Annual Conference                 05/16/07;
(p)   2007 Annual Judicial Conference                                 08/22/07;
(q)   Annual Meeting (SCDTAA)                                         11/01/07;
(r)   23rd Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update                         01/25/08;
(s)   6th Annual Civil Law Update                                         01/25/08;
(t)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges Annual Conference                     05/14/08;
(u)   2008 Annual Judicial Conference                                 08/20/08;
(v)   7th Annual Civil Law Update                                         01/23/09;
(w)   24th Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update                         01/23/09;
(x)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges Annual Conference                 05/06/09.
Judge Goldsmith reported that he has taught the following law-related course:

"I lectured at the S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar seminar on December 5, 2003."
Judge Goldsmith reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Goldsmith 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 Goldsmith reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV.
Judge Goldsmith reported the following military service:

"I served in the United States Army from 1964 to 1966. I received an honorable discharge as First Lieutenant. I am no longer in the service. My military serial was XXX-XX-XXXX."
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Judge Goldsmith was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from   law school:
(a)   I was a member of the law firm of Sutherland, Asbil & Brennan in Atlanta, Georgia from 1969 to 71.
(b)   I was a partner in the law firm of Williams, Rushing & Goldsmith from 1971 to 72.
(c)   I was a partner in the law firm of Rushing & Goldsmith from approximately 1972 to 75.
(d)   I was a partner in the law firm of Thomas, Rushing & Goldsmith & Folks.
(e)   I was a partner in the law firm of Thomas, Goldsmith, Folks & Hodges.
(f)   I was a partner in the law firm of Goldsmith, Folks & Hodges.
(g)   I was a partner in the law firm of Goldsmith, Folks, Khoury & DeVenny.
(h)   I was a sole proprietor in the law firm of Brooks P. Goldsmith from 1991 to 2001.
(i)   I was a Family Court Judge for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, 2001 to 05.
(j)   I have been a resident Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth Judicial Circuit since 2005.

Judge Goldsmith reported that he has held the following judicial offices:   Municipal Judge, City of Lancaster from approximately 1973 to 74. This was an appointed position. The jurisdiction of the court was limited to traffic tickets and other minor criminal violations punishable for up to 30 days or $100.

Judge, Family Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, from 2001 to 05. Judge, Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, from 2005 to the present.
Judge Goldsmith provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   Dorothy J. Mabe v. Larry Mabe (Case No. 2000-DR-46-1068), Order dated March 28, 2003.

This case involved equitable distribution of the marital estate, alimony, transmutation of property owned by the parties prior to the marriage, distribution of proceeds from personal injury accident claim and interpretation of the settlement agreement signed by the parties but disavowed at trial. The Court found, among other things, that the settlement agreement was ambiguous, that neither party had sought legal advice, full financial disclosure had not been made by either party and the Court found the agreement was unenforceable.
(b)   Edward E. Wilson v. Bobbie H. Wilson (Case No. 2001-DR-46-730), Order dated January 15, 2004.

This was a marriage of approximately 35 years. This case involved allegations of adultery, which were denied, a fraudulent complaint filed by one of the parties and distribution of the marital estate, including a business owned by the husband. Additional issues involved the argument that the husband's inherited property had become transmuted. Both parties were drawing social security.
(c)   Mary Helen Powell Mazzoli v. Travis Lee Dowdy (Case No. 2004-DR-10-306), heard in Charleston County August 30-September 2, 2004.

This was an action for custody of a 11/2-year-old girl. At the beginning of the trial, the mother's attorney moved to disqualify the father's attorney on the grounds that said attorney represented the father of another child of the mother in an action against her for custody of that child. The mother was a medical assistant. The father was a firefighter. A psychologist testified on behalf of the mother. The major issue in the case revolved around the mother's stability and her ability to cope with being brought up in a dysfunctional family and being sexually abused as a child.
(d)   Chester County DSS v. Jacqueline Jennings and William Moore, Case No. 2002-DR-12-561, Order dated February 24, 2003.

The Department of Social Services sought custody of an unnamed child that they believed the Defendant Mother had given birth to on unknown date and unknown location. The Mother refused to testify, asserting her rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Mother had not been granted immunity from prosecution and, thus, was not compelled to testify. The Department of Social Services presented substantial evidence of the Mother's extensive drug abuse over a number of years. The Mother's rights to two other children had been terminated in separate proceedings. The Court granted to the Department of Social Services, custody of an unknown child born to the named Defendant, Mother, during a specified time frame.
(e)   April D. Enos v. John Doe and Travelers Indemnity Insurance Co., 669 S.E.2d 619 (Ct. App. 2008)

Enos became intoxicated at a bar and got in her car to go to sleep. Rescue personnel found Enos in her vehicle at another location. The vehicle had apparently been wrecked and she had been injured. She had no recollection of the accident. Enos brought an action against John Doe seeking uninsured motorist coverage alleging that an unknown driver drove her car into a bridge while she was a passenger. The statute in question requires that for an insured to prevail, there must be an affidavit submitted by a witness other than the owner or operator of the insured vehicle, attesting to the facts of the accident. Enos argued that the legislature did not intend to require affidavits in single vehicle accidents and that the statute should be liberally construed. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's cause of action finding that the statute was clear and unambiguous. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Judge Goldsmith reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge:

"When I was a Municipal Court Judge, I was a partner in the law firm of Rushing & Goldsmith from 1973-74 as a practicing attorney."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Goldsmith's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Goldsmith is married to Laura Jane Porter Goldsmith. He has one child.
Judge Goldsmith reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
South Carolina Bar Association.
Judge Goldsmith provided that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization.
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Goldsmith to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Goldsmith has a good reputation as a jurist and has ably discharged his responsibilities in both the Family and Circuit Courts.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Goldsmith qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Addy meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Addy was born in 1967. He is 42-years old and a resident of Greenwood, South Carolina. Judge Addy 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 1993.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Addy.
Judge Addy 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 Addy reported that he has made $857.31 in campaign expenditures for postage, paper, envelopes, business cards, and a name badge.
Judge Addy testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Addy 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 Addy to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Addy described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                           Date
(a)   11th Annual Probate Bench/Bar                                   09/12/03;
(b)   55th Annual S.C. Assoc. of Probate Judges Conf.           09/21/03;
(c)   Probate Judges' Legislative Conference                       02/02/04;
(d)   S.C. Assoc. Probate Judges, SCAC Conf.                       08/05/04;
(e)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Assoc. Conf.                                 08/05/04;
(f)   Judicial Oath of Office                                             08/19/04;
(g)   12th Annual Probate Bench/Bar                                   09/17/04;
(h   Greenwood Bar - Revised Oath and Bar CLE                   09/30/04;
(i)   56th Annual S.C. Assoc. of Probate Judges Conf.               10/10/04;
(j)   2004 S.C. Bar Convention                                           01/21/05;
(k)   Probate Judges' Legislative Conference                       02/28/05;
(l)   2005 Probate Judges/Court                                         05/06/05
(m)   13th Annual Probate Bench/Bar                                   09/16/05;
(n)   57th Annual S.C. Assoc. of Probate Judges Conf.           09/21/05;
(o)   2006 S.C. Bar Convention                                         01/27/06;
(p)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Assoc. Conf.                                 08/03/06;
(q)   S.C. Assoc. of Judges, SCAC Conf.                           08/04/06;
(r)   14th Annual Probate Bench/Bar                                   09/15/06;
(s)   58th Annual S.C. Assoc. of Probate Judges Conf.           10/04/06;
(t)   2007 S.C. Bar Convention                                           01/25/07;
(u)   Probate Judges' Legislative Conference                       02/13/07;
(v)   Orientation School for New Probate Judges                   03/15/07;
(w)   59th Annual S.C. Assoc. of Probate Judges Conf.           09/09/07;
(x)   15th Annual Probate Bench/Bar                                   09/14/07;
(y)   2008 S.C. Bar Convention                                         01/25/08;
(z)   Probate Judges' Legislative Conference                       02/05/08;
(aa)   16th Annual Probate Bench/Bar                                   09/14/08;
(bb)   Judicial Selection in S.C. - S.C. Bar, SCWLA               09/17/08;
(cc)   2008 S.C. Solicitor's Association Conference               09/28/08;
(dd)   S.C. Assoc. of Probate Judges Fall Conference             10/05/08;
(ee)   S.C. Bar Association Annual Convention                       01/23/09;
(ff)   Probate Judges' Legislative Conference                       02/24/09;
(gg)   16th Annual Probate Bench/Bar                 09/11/09;
(hh)   2009 S.C. Solicitor's Conference           09/27-09/30/09;
(ii)   61st Annual SCAPJ Conference             10/18-10/21/09.
Judge Addy reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
a)   "Dual Diagnosis" October 9, 2001

South Carolina Association of Probate Judges

Presentation addressing the problematic practical and procedural issues concerning stabilization and treatment of individuals who are mentally ill and also chemically dependent.
(b)   "New Probate Judge's School"

S.C. Court Administration & SCAPJ, January 10, 2003 & March 15, 2007

Planned topics, organized speakers and materials, and moderated the 2003 New Probate Judge's School. Personally addressed the topics of ethics and estate taxation at the 2003 and 2007 schools.
(c)   "Therapeutic Commitments - Jurisdictional Issues and Supplemental Proceedings"

South Carolina Association of Probate Judges, August 6, 2004

Lecture on the jurisdictional validity of commitment orders throughout the state and between states with additional discussion of supplemental proceedings when the person is non-   compliant with the court's order.
(d)   "General Probate Issues"

Greenwood County Bar, September 30, 2004

Presentation was geared to the general practice lawyer who only occasionally practiced in probate and addressed the procedural aspects of a variety of common problems. Lecture included a discussion of recent changes in the law, disclaimers, omitted spouse vs. elective share petitions, conservatorships, wrongful death settlements, limitations of actions, and other matters.
(e)   "Creditor's Claim Presentment in the Probate Court"

S.C. Morticians Assoc., October 24, 2004

Presentation concerned the procedures law for presenting a claim against a decedent's estate.
(f)   13th Annual Probate Bench/Bar, Course Planner and Moderator

S.C. Bar CLE Division, September 16, 2005

I planned and moderated the 2005 Bench/Bar and was subsequently told that the attendance for the event surpassed all previous probate bench/bar conferences.
(g)   "Temporary and Emergency Measures in Probate Proceedings"

S.C. Association of Probate Judges, September 25, 2005

Procedural overview of Rule 65, SCRCP, governing temporary injunctions as compared to Section 62-3-607 governing emergency orders in the estate context and 62-5-310 governing appointment of emergency temporary guardians.
(h)   "The Probate Process and Presentation of Creditor's Claim in   South Carolina's Probate Courts"

South Carolina Oncology Association, May 18, 2006

Presentation was a procedural overview of the process for probating an estate, presenting claims against an estate, and   explanation of the time limits involved in both.
(i)   "Roundtable Discussion"

South Carolina Association of Probate Judges, August 4, 2006

Served as a panel member and discussed hypothetical situations applicable to the courts.
(j)   "Recent Issues in the Probate Court"

Greenwood County Bar, February 23, 2007

Presentation discussed the recent Franklin and Brown opinions concerning the unauthorized practice of law in the probate context and also addressed competency issues when a lawyer feels is client may be suffering from Alzheimer's dementia.
(k)   "Probate Potluck - Round Table Discussion"

S.C. Association of Probate Judges, September 12, 2007

Served as a panel member and discussed various probate topics and problems.
(l)   "Involuntary Mental Illness Commitments"

S.C. Summary Court Judges Assoc., May 6, 2008

Presentation concerned the procedural and substantive law concerning involuntary commitments of persons suffering from mental illness and chemical dependency.
(m)   "Caring for Our Aging Parents"

Women's Forum, GCC, April 1, 2009

Presentation regarding issues surrounding caring for aging parents who are experiencing decreased mental or physical capacity.
(n)   "Motion Sickness"

SCAPJ, October 9, 2009

This presentation addressed the application of the S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure to the probate courts and covered topics such as pleadings and the recent Gause case, summary judgment, discovery abuses and sanctions, and relief under Rule 55 as opposed to Rule 60.
Judge Addy reported that he has published the following:

Probate Bench Book

"I coordinated the compilation and editing of this book and the final version is due to be released to the Probate Judge's Advisory Committee and Court Administration. The book addresses all aspects of the court's jurisdiction and procedures as well as substantive law."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Addy did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Addy did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Addy has handled his financial affairs responsibly. The Commission also noted that Judge Addy 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 Addy reported, "I am not rated in Martindale-Hubbell, although there is a brief 'Judge Profile' for me on their online listing. Having been a judge for the last ten years, I have never sought a Martindale-Hubbell rating since my current occupation does not depend upon client referral."
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Addy was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1993.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office

September, 1993 - February, 1997

Prosecuted all types of felony and misdemeanor cases, including homicide and serious felonies.

Promoted to Deputy Solicitor for Abbeville County during my tenure and successfully reduced Abbeville's pending docket from roughly 20 pages to 6 over the course of approximately 21/2 years.
(b)   Sheek, Addy & Medlock, PA

March, 1997 - February, 1998

Upon passing of my father, I engaged in general private practice including personal injury, domestic, and criminal cases.
(c)   Chief Public Defender for Greenwood and Abbeville Counties

February, 1998 - June, 1999

Responsible for defending clients charged in general sessions as well as juvenile court. Oversaw operation of the office and defended all manner of criminal cases.
(d)   Probate Judge for Greenwood County

June, 1999 - Present

Responsible for contested civil hearings concerning all aspects of the court's jurisdiction: estates, trusts, protective proceedings, and therapeutic commitments. Managed the case docket and successfully reduced delinquency in pending cases.

Served as Special Referee over the years for common pleas matters referred to me for trial or hearing.
(e)   Greenwood County Clerk of Court

June, 2003 - August, 2003

Upon the retirement of Greenwood's clerk of court and pursuant to state law, I assumed the role of acting clerk of court until the Governor made his appointment.
(f)   Circuit Court Judge by Special Appointment of Chief Justice

September, 2006 - November, 2007

Presided over eleven (11) terms of circuit court by special appointment of the Chief Justice while Greenwood's resident judge was recovering from cancer. Presided over jury trials, guilty pleas, probation violations, motions, and addressed matters on the civil docket as well.
(g)   Special Referee

I have served as Special Referee numerous times over the years for common pleas matters referred to me for trial or hearing. Jurisdiction was limited to trying the cases specifically referred to me.
(h)   Judge of the Eighth Circuit Drug Court

August 2008 - Present

Appointed by the Chief Justice on August 18, 2008, to serve as judge for the Eighth Circuit Adult Drug Court program. Will preside over and supervise drug court participants throughout their participation in the program, from accepting their guilty plea to completion of or termination from the program. Worked with Solicitor in establishing the program and crafting the model.
Judge Addy further reported:

My experience in circuit court is unique among the candidates seeking this seat.

For two years, I served as circuit judge by order of special appointment while our resident circuit judge was recovering from cancer. In that time, I presided over guilty pleas, jury trials, motions, bond hearings, and probation revocations. In short, I have essentially handled same matters which come before a circuit judge on a daily basis. The unsolicited and discretely obtained feedback I received concerning my performance during this period was overwhelmingly positive.

Prior to my election to the bench, I was an assistant and deputy solicitor for roughly four (4) years and chief public defender for two (2) years. While serving as Deputy Solicitor, I successfully brought the pending case docket for the county I supervised down from over twenty (20) pages to fewer than six (6) pages. My desire and ability to move a backlogged docket, and then to keep the cases moving, would be of significant value on the civil side.

I have prosecuted and defended homicides, including death penalty, and I obtained a conviction on one if the first LWOP cases brought to trial. I have prosecuted or defended, in trial and via guilty plea, practically every criminal offense known, including rapes, drug offenses, assaults, robberies, and burglaries.

Concerning the civil matters which a circuit judge must hear and the civil docket which a circuit judge must administer, I have served as probate judge since 1999, and the trials in probate court require me to apply the same rules of evidence and procedure as are applied in the court of common pleas. Estate and trust matters involve application of the same principals of law and equity which apply in any civil case, and the stakes involved in most of the trials I hear are exceedingly high for the parties. In addition to complex and contested litigation concerning trusts and estates, I preside over often emotional cases concerning guardianships, conservatorships and involuntary commitments. I know that compassion is a necessary and invaluable characteristic for a judge, and I make every effort to render well-reasoned, thoughtful, and thorough decisions in all the cases I hear, regardless of the amount in controversy or the emotional context of the litigation.

Just as a circuit judge must run the civil docket, as judge for my court, I must also supervise my court's docket, keep cases moving, and ensure that matters under my supervision are addressed in a fair and procedurally correct manner. In short, as judge for my court, I have the same responsibility for case and docket management as circuit judges do for their court, and I will be able to immediately apply my ten (10) years of experience to management of the civil docket.

Additionally, I have served as special referee for non-jury matters and hearings referred to me from the circuit court docket. These hearings require application of the same rules of civil procedure and the same principals as are applied under the circuit court's civil jurisdiction.
I also served as acting clerk of court upon the retirement of Greenwood's clerk. Many might characterize this job as purely ministerial, but I gained an appreciation for the inner workings of that office and the incredible management skills necessary to keep that office running. Our clerks of court are an indispensable asset to our courts, and no aspect of the law would function without their efforts.

Like most lawyers, I have also been in private practice, so I appreciate the demands on a lawyer's time, the pressures of running an office, and the stresses and obligations that lawyers face on a daily basis. While in private practice, my firm's practice area could best be described as general practice, handling civil, criminal, family and summary court cases. Although circuit judges must sometimes be firm with attorneys so that a docket keeps moving, judges should also have an appreciation for the rigors, demands, and stresses of private practice.

I have a judicial philosophy which has served me well for the last ten (10) years. A good judge is one who remains firm, yet retains compassion and empathy for the parties. One of the benefits in working with the public throughout my legal career is that I understand and truly appreciate that every case is special, emotional, and unique for those involved. For example, what one might characterize as "a simple wreck case" may only involve a few thousand dollars of damages, but for most citizens, the outcome of such a case is of significant importance to them, regardless of whether they are plaintiff or defendant. I fully appreciate the emotional character involved in most litigation, and for courts to remain credible to the public, the parties must feel that the court gave their side a full and fair hearing, decisions rendered must be correct and free of bias or political consideration, and most importantly, the court's verdict must represent a proper application of the law, as written, to the particular factual scenario. Judicial activism invites uncertainty for the parties and results in disparate application of the law from judge to judge.

I firmly believe that courts and judges face a public confidence problem when the law is not applied as written, when parties feel as if they did not have a full opportunity to be heard, or whenever a judge's decision appeared to be swayed by political considerations. Judges must also possess the demeanor necessary to treat all who come before them with patience and respect, and such character must be present, practiced, and demonstrated daily.

In conclusion, my varied judicial and professional experience and my judicial demeanor have prepared me well for this position.
Judge Addy reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:
(a)   Federal:   0%;
(b)   State:     100%;
(c)   Other:     N/A.
Judge Addy reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:
(a)   Civil:       25%;
(b)   Criminal:   65%;
(c)   Domestic:   10%.
Judge Addy reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:
(a)   Jury:         10%;
(b)   Non-jury:   90%.
He further reported: "I answer this question based upon the general period before I was elected to the bench. Although many probate cases go to trial, they are usually non-jury, and the most recent jury trials I oversaw were conducted when I served as circuit judge by appointment.
Judge Addy provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often "served as sole counsel for the vast majority of his cases."
The following is Judge Addy's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   State v. Darvin Wayne Allen (1999 Death Penalty case) This was a death penalty case wherein I represented the defendant. This case was challenging from a defense point of view in that the homicide happened several years before Allen and his co-defendants were identified as suspects, and it was the co-defendants who gave inconsistent statements identifying Allen as the shooter. The police charged Allen subsequent to Allen being convicted of armed robbery of a Pizza Hut; that case involved several of the co-defendants who were alleged to be involved in the homicide.

Because of attorney-client privilege, I am not at liberty to discuss the factual information or legal preparation involved in this case. Suffice it to say, however, that our work in terms of investigation, research, and trial strategy was extensive and fruitful. I am certain that the first motion we made would have resulted in reversal on appeal had Allen been convicted.

Due to the strength of our preparation and despite previous resistance on the part of the victims and others to any plea which contemplated Allen's potential release from prison, we were able to obtain a favorable 20 year negotiated life plea for Allen early in the guilt phase, which was a positive result in light of the high potential for a verdict of death (assuming a conviction in the guilt phase).
(b)   State v. Keith A. Scurry, 322 S.C. 514, 473 S.E.2d 61 (S.C. App. 1996) (Armed Robbery case - made new case law and resulted in statutory law change) Armed robbery case which I prosecuted with only a few hours of preparation time (the solicitor assigned the case had an unexpected death in the family). Defendant robbed a convenience store with a lug wrench which he hid under a towel. The victim testified that she thought the concealed lug wrench was a gun. The defendant testified he brought the lug wrench into the store in the event he had to pry the cash register open. The defendant was convicted of armed robbery. The trial judge, sua sponte, vacated the conviction and imposed a conviction for common law robber under the justification that the defendant never intended to use the lug wrench as a deadly weapon. I sufficiently protected the record and appealed. The court's order was vacated and the sentence for armed robbery was imposed.

This case also resulted in my contacting my local legislator who, with my encouragement, filed a bill to address situations in the armed robbery statute whereby a defendant would use a fake gun or verbally inform the victim that the defendant is armed with a deadly weapon. This bill was introduced and ultimately signed into law which changed the definition of armed robbery to specifically include representations of a deadly weapon, by word or by appearance.
(c)   Wallace v. Roach et al., In Re the Estate of John C. Wallace 01-ES-24-428 (Statute of Elizabeth, real property, and equitable issues) This case concerned an effort by judgment creditors to set aside a series of arguably defective deeds involving real property which the judgment creditors maintained had been executed in violation of the Statute of Elizabeth. The defendant had misappropriated proceeds from the consignment sale of several RV's from numerous defendants. The property he owned had been arguably held in a trust of questionable validity prior to the subsequent transfers. The case, therefore, required application of complex real property law and equitable principals because of the number and questionable character of the transactions, and the outcome turned upon whether an express or resulting trust had been created as well as application of principals of real property law and equitable doctrines.
(d)   Carol Scurry v. R. Brooks Scurry, Jr. et al,, In Re the Estate of R. Brooks Scurry, Sr. 98-ES-24-357 (2000) (Complex estate litigation) This case concerned a $5 million federally taxable estate and a Will with a very complex funding formula for the various trusts. The issues surrounding the litigation concerned contractual duress, reformation of a Will, proper funding of generation skipping trusts, a marital deduction trust and the right to withdrawal, attorney's fees, right to contribution for a mortgage, removal of trustee, as well as other issues. This matter could have been certified as "complex litigation" if such a designation existed in the estate context.
(e)   State v. Willie James Ervin (One of the first applications of LWOP law) (1996) Co-counsel and I prosecuted this case which concerned the violent rape and kidnapping of a young woman by an individual who had a New Jersey conviction for rape, thereby making him eligible under the recently enacted LWOP statute. See Section 17-25-45. The charges arose shortly after South Carolina's adoption of the 2-3 Strike law which allows for the Solicitor to seek life imprisonment without parole for such defendants. This case was one of the first cases wherein this new penalty was applied, and a great deal of work was done both to obtain the conviction as well as to prove application of out-of-state law. The defendant remains in prison on the kidnapping charge. State v. Ervin, 333 S.C. 351, 510 S.E.2d 220 (S.C. App. 1998).
Judge Addy reported that he has not personally handled any civil appeals.
The following is Judge Addy's account of criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"Aside from filing the notice of appeal in State v. Scurry, I have not personally handled a criminal appeal."
Judge Addy reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
(a)   Acting Circuit Court Judge

September 2006 - November 2007

Presided over eleven (11) terms of circuit court by special appointment of the Chief Justice (see question 2 of Personal Data Questionnaire Addendum for listing of specific terms of court). As a court of general jurisdiction, I presided over general sessions jury trials, guilty pleas, probation violations, motions, and addressed matters on the civil docket as needed or requested.
(b)   Probate Judge for Greenwood County

June, 1999 - Present

Appointed in June 1999. Subsequently reelected without opposition in 2000, 2002, and 2006

Responsible for contested civil hearings concerning all aspects of the court's jurisdiction under Section 62-1-302 (Supp. 2005): decedent's estates, trusts, Article 5 protective proceedings, and therapeutic commitments under Title 44.
(c)   Special Referee

I have served as Special Referee numerous times over the years for common pleas matters referred to me for trial or hearing. Jurisdiction was limited to trying the cases specifically referred to me.
(d)   Drug Court Judge, Eighth Circuit Adult Drug Court

Appointed in August 2008, and I gladly serve without compensation.

Responsible for accepting guilty pleas, supervising, and presiding over all participants in the adult drug court program. Please note that I intend to continue serving as drug court judge regardless of the outcome of my candidacy for seat 1. I am extremely pleased with the way the Eighth Circuit Drug Court program is helping addicts break the cycle of addiction, and I am proud to be a part of this effort.
Judge Addy provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   Wrenn, et al. v. Gillenwater, In Re the Estate of Janelle B. Smith, 06-ES-24-4 (September 12, 2008) This was a constructive trust case, and I provide it largely because it is the most recent example of my legal writing and because it clearly demonstrates the restraint a judge must exercise when hard facts invite a judge to question or misapply the law. This matter was a difficult case in that the facts cried out for a result which simply was not permitted under the law.
(b)   Walker v. McLeod, et al. 03-CP-24-1513 (December 30, 2005) I provide this order as an example of an order from a matter I handled as Special Referee. The case concerned a motion to set aside default and a damages hearing. Defendants acted pro se, but the case is significant in that, after a full hearing at trial, it became apparent that the plaintiff had exaggerated the relief he was entitled to under a contract between himself and the defendants. This case represents a good example of how a disingenuous party may, at times, attempt to procedurally box-in a defendant, and courts should not permit a party to profit by their less than candid assertions prior to litigation.
(c)   Matthews v. Bryan, et al., In Re the Estate of Kay Matthews, 02-ES-24-22 This case involved a partition action and a petition to set aside a deed. I heard this case both as special referee under the jurisdiction of common pleas and as probate judge under the court's Title 62 jurisdiction. The plaintiff was the second spouse of decedent. This was an emotional case for the parties, largely because of criminal accusations involving the plaintiff and one of the defendant's children. Defendants were seeking partition of property which had been deeded out of their mother's estate and held as tenants in common between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff sought to set aside the deed to pay estate administrative expenses. Also involved in this case were issues of personal property, accounting for expenses, and valuation of estate assets.
(d)   Wallace v. Roach, et al., In Re the Estate of John C. Wallace (see Question 19 (c) for discussion of case)
(e)   State v. Jane Blackwell (2007 "Ware Shoals High Cheerleading Scandal" - case concerned competing concepts of legal ethics, first amendment, and media access): This case was a very high profile case with a great deal of national media attention. Imposition of a gag order is rarely done. In this case, it was necessary to preserve the integrity of the process and to prevent one party from trying the case in the media to the detriment of the other parties and the court system.

Factually, the case concerned the cheerleading coach of Ware Shoals High School, Moore, who had allegedly provided alcohol to her cheerleaders and facilitated inappropriate sexual encounters between them and two National Guard recruiters. Blackwell was the principal who allegedly knew of the improprieties and attempted to cover them up.

Media attention on this case was very intense and lasted for several months after the story initially broke. Agents for the state and an attorney for Blackwell actively forwarded a great deal of information into the press concerning the allegations, subsequent investigations, and defenses. A member of Blackwell's defense team was arguably more active in allowing or encouraging media access to his client's case; he did have an arguable justification under Rule 3.6 (c) of Rule 407, SCACR. However, much of the recent information entering the media by Blackwell's counsel was very prejudicial to Moore, who had not been seeking media attention. In short, although the information was beneficial to one defendant, it was damaging to the other parties involved.

The solicitor ultimately moved for a gag order on the grounds that the information being circulated by counsel for Blackwell would prejudice the jury pool in both Moore's and Blackwell's case. Many members of the print and television media were present for the hearing, and several news organizations entered an appearance and intervened opposing the motion. After weighing the potential prejudice to the parties, applicable 1st Amendment rights, and the ethical obligation of counsel, I granted the motion finding that the pretrial publicity posed a substantial likelihood of prejudice to all concerned parties. (Note that only the parties and their counsel were prevented from speaking to the media; the media, of course, was not subject to the order.)

Aside from the Allen case mentioned above, this was the second high-profile case I have handled, although I neither seek nor relish such publicity.
Judge Addy further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In January 2009, I was found qualified and nominated for Seat 2 of the Eighth Judicial Circuit by the JMSC. I withdrew from the race in early February 2009 so that Judge Eugene 'Bubba' Griffith could be elected without opposition."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Addy's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Addy is married to Kelly Sprouse Addy. He has two children.
Judge Addy reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association, 1993 - present;
(b)   President, S.C. Association of Probate Judges, 2005-06;
(c)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges, 1999 - present;
(d)   Chairman, Advisory Committee to the Chief Justice, 2001-03;
(e)   Co-Chair of S.C. Bar Probate Code Revision Committee, Article   3, 2009.
Judge Addy provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Cub Scout Pack 222, den leader since 2005
(b)   IAAP Executive of the Year, 2003;
(c)   Greenwood Masonic Lodge AFM #91 (since 1998);
(d)   High School Moot Court Coach;
(e)   Links at Stoney Point (social and pool membership);
(f)   Greenwood Country Club (social, pool and tennis membership).
Judge Addy further reported:
I would like to share the reason that I have elected to file for this position. First, I am not running for this position out of a desire for prestige, money, power, or to otherwise better my personal station. My current judicial position more than adequately meets my personal, financial, and professional needs, and I have deliberated seriously on the implications for my family and myself in seeking this seat, because success in this endeavor would mean less freedom, a more exacting schedule, and substantial time away from my family.
My faith is very personal to me, and for that reason, I hesitate mentioning it, but being a person of faith I am running because I firmly believe that everyone is blessed with certain talents which are unique to that individual and that our obligation in this life is to apply those talents to our community's common betterment, in service to man and to our maker. Overall, I have enjoyed being a judge and practicing law, and I am confident that my unique talents and varied personal and professional experiences would serve the bench well.
Not only have I previously served in virtually all legal capacities in the circuit court, I have had a wide variety of other jobs which gives me insight into other occupations. I have trucked vinyl siding and worked in a warehouse; I traded bonds at one bank and processed cancelled checks at another; I have worked for an asbestos manufacturer and in a retail family business.
When my father passed away in 1997, I was still rather young. He and my grandparents owned a very successful retail jewelry store in Greenwood, and much of my youth was spent behind the counter of that store. At the time of my father's death, I was a Deputy Solicitor earning a very good income and truly enjoying prosecuting cases, so I did not relish having to leave and help my family with the store. If I made one mistake in this time period, it was in believing that I could practice law and help run a jewelry store at the same time; the law is truly a jealous mistress. However, leaving was not a mistake, and I am glad I did what I did, both because I fulfilled an obligation, and because leaving set me on the path to seek this seat.
My greatest personal mentor was my father. My father was a very humble but fun man blessed with incredibly good judgment about things, and he gave me two pieces of advice which I value. First, do what you love. There is no reason to spend a third of your life working in a job you hate. Luckily, I enjoy the intellectual demands of being a judge, applying the law, and working with lawyers and the public to resolve their problems. I couldn't imagine doing anything else.
Second, "move your inventory." This is the most practical and true piece of professional advice I have ever received. You cannot make money in retail if your inventory doesn't sell. Similarly, courts break down if they can't move their cases. Docket backlogs have many causes, some of which are legitimate, but judges must consistently do everything they can to keep cases moving. Just as my father and grandparents succeeded in business because they succeeded in moving their inventory, a measure of a judge's success can be gauged by how well that judge manages to move their cases.
I have always had the utmost respect for the late Judge Jim Johnson. He presided over the first complete trial I ever saw, and I remain in awe of his intellect, demeanor, and diligence. He and Jim Moore are my professional role models, and I hope that I may continue to serve and someday match their abilities.
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Addy to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The committee noted that Judge Addy "is highly regarded for his professional and academic ability, character and reputation. He already has experience as a judge, and the Committee believes his judicial temperament will be excellent. We find Mr. Addy well qualified for the office he is seeking. The decision of the Committee was unanimous."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that Judge Addy is very intelligent and has an outstanding reputation, which would equip him well on the Circuit Court. The Commission also noted that Judge Addy has ably served as a Probate Court Judge for ten years, as well as an Acting Circuit Court Judge for 11 Circuit Court terms.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Addy qualified and nominated him for election   to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Able meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Able was born in 1961. He is 48 years old and a resident of Laurens, South Carolina. Mr. Able provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1987.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Able.
Mr. Able 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. Able reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Able testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Able 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. Able to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Able described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name                               Date
(a)   Blues, Bar-B-Q, and Bar C-L-E                   07/11/08;
(b)   Handling the Auto Injury Claim                   06/20/08;
(c)   Handling a Social Security Disability Case             06/17/08;
(d)   A Successful Law Practice                       05/19/06;
(e)   2nd Annual Blues, Bar-B-Q and                   07/14/06;
(f)   2006 Public Defenders Conference                 09/25/06;
(g)   Blues, Bar-B-Q, and Bar C-L-E                   06/15/05;
(h)   2005 S.C. Public Defender Conference               09/26/05;
(i)   South Carolina Family Ct. Bench/Bar               12/2/05;
(j)   SCDSS-OGC CLE Seminar                     9/17/04;
(k)   Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic                 9/24/04;
(l)   Greenwood County Bar Seminar                   9/30/04;
(m)   Revised Lawyers Oath CLE                     9/24/04.
Mr. Able reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Mr. Able reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Able did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Able did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Able has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Able 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. Able reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Able was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1987.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   Culbertson, Whiteside & Turner-Associate 1987-91-General Practice;
(b)   Culbertson, Whiteside, Turner & Able-Partner-1991-96 General Practice;
(c)   Contract Attorney for the South Carolina Department of Social Services 1992 - September 2004;
(d)   Turner & Able-Partner-1996-99-General Practice;
(e)   Turner, Able and Burney-Partner-2000-01-General Practice;
(f)   Bryan C. Able, Attorney at Law-2001 to present-General Practice;
(g)   Assistant Laurens County Public Defender - 2005-06.
Mr. Able further reported:

Over the past 22 years I have handled all aspects of criminal cases from beginning to jury verdict. I have attended preliminary hearings, negotiated with solicitors, prepared for trial, tried cases to jury verdicts and perfected appeals. In that time I have represented defendants charged with murder, assault and battering of a high and aggravated nature, unlawful carrying of a pistol, grand larceny more than $5,000.00, lynching, burglary, criminal domestic violence of high and aggravated nature, criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, resisting arrest, possession of unlawful handgun, forgery, possession of illegal video gaming machine, operating a gaming house, unlawful conduct toward a child, unlawful neglect by a legal guardian, impersonating a law enforcement officer, financial transaction card theft, malicious damage to personal property, armed robbery, disseminating obscenity, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, pointing and presenting a firearm, breaking in vehicles, distribution of crack cocaine, distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a school or park, criminal conspiracy, breach of trust with fraudulent intent, failure to stop for law enforcement officer, possession of a stolen vehicle, distribution of a controlled substance, presenting a forged document, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, passion with intent to distribute marijuana with in proximity of a school, filing a false police report, conspiracy to hunt turkeys, DUI 2nd offence and greater, possession of methamphetamines, receiving stolen goods, and arson. This list is representative and does not completely list all the types of cases I have handled in criminal court. Over the past five years I have handled in excess of 100 General Sessions Court cases.

As for my experience in civil court I have handled cases from the filing of initial pleadings through appeal. While handling civil cases I have prepared and filed pleadings, filed and argued pretrial motions, engaged in every form of pretrial discovery, interviewed clients and witnesses, prepared cases for trial, researched the issues of the case, tried cases, researched appealed issues and prepared and filed appellate briefs. During that time I have handled civil cases involving slip and fall, actions to set aside foreign judgments, personal injury (accident claims), wrongful death, medical malpractice, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, property line disputes, claim and delivery, assault and battery, collection of debts, action to set aside deeds, Probate Court Appeals, Zoning Board Appeals, Post Conviction Relief Applications and other issues. I have represented both Plaintiffs and Defendants in civil court.
Mr. Able reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:

(a)   federal:   0%;
(b)   state:   100%.
Mr. Able reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:

(a)   civil:       10%;

(b)   criminal:   20%;
(c)   domestic:   70%.
Mr. Able reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows:

(a)   jury:         5%;
(b)   non-jury:     95%.
Mr. Able provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Able's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   State v. Howard Steven Davenport

94-GS-30-386; tried June 2, 1994 in the Laurens County Court of General Sessions. Mr. Davenport was charged with unlawful possession of diazepam and possession with intent to distribute diazepam. The judge directed a verdict on the possession with intent to distribute diazepam charge and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the possession charge although Mr. Davenport admitted having diazepam in his possession that had not been prescribed to or for him.
(b)   State v. Robert Jones

94-GS-30-629; tried in the Laurens County Court of General Sessions.

Mr. Jones was charged with committing or attempting a lewd act upon a child under fourteen. This case was significant because the defense moved to exclude a majority of the evidence introduced by the State pursuant to State v. Lyle.
(c)   Johnson v. Flaugher

90-CP-39-180; tried in the Pickens County Court of Common Pleas on August 13 and 14, 1991.

The nature of this case was based in common law master-servant and negligence. Plaintiff was injured while employed by defendant but was not covered by workers compensation. As a result the action was brought on the common law theory of master-servant and negligence. At trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Upon appeal, the issues submitted for review were whether the issue of contributory negligence could be decided as a matter of law without being submitted to the jury, whether the issue of assumption of risk could have been decided as a matter of law without being submitted to the jury, if the judge had given a proper charge on the issue of contributory negligence, whether the judges charge on the issue of permanent injury and the use of life expectancy (mortuary) table was proper and whether the jury's verdict was excessive.
(d)   Satterfield v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.

97-CP-23-1431; tried in the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas on October 29, 1998. This case was significant because the appellate court reviewed the issue of a party's right to amend pleadings pursuant to Rule 15 SCRCP and if allowing a late amendment of pleadings was prejudicial to the other party.
(e)   In the case of Donnie L. Thacker

Claim for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits before the Social Security Administration I began representing Mr. Thacker on October 12, 1988 on his claim for Social Security Disability Benefits. After numerous hearings, reviews by the Appeals Council and an appeal to the United States District Court, Mr. Thacker was awarded his benefits by decision of the Administrative Law Judge on December 19, 2000. My representation of Mr.Thaker in this case lasted twelve (12) years and ended successfully.
The following is Mr. Able's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   Johnny Lee Johnson v. Phillip Flaugher - S.C. Supreme Court;
(b)   Jennifer Satterfield, by her Guardian Ad Litem, Pam Satterfield v. Dillard Department Store - S.C. Court of Appeals;
(c)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Jason Ihnatiuk et al. S.C. Court of Appeals;
(d)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Jacqueline D. Sims et al. S.C. Court of Appeals;
(e)   David A. Babb v. Betty Anne Scott et al. - S.C. Court of Appeals.
Mr. Able reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Mr. Able reports that he held the following judicial office:

"Laurens City Judge-March 1991-94. Criminal jurisdiction up to statutory fine or thirty days in jail."
Mr. Able further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
(a)   Circuit Court, 8th Circuit, Seat 2 - 2008;
(b)   Solicitor, Eighth Judicial Circuit - 2004.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Able's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Mr. Able is married to Esther Ruth Myers Able. He has three children.
Mr. Able reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Mr. Able provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

(a)   Laurens Exchange Club;
(b)   Rosemont Society of Laurens.
The Piedmont Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Able to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee also stated, "We were impressed by Mr. Able's work ethic and his extensive experience." The Committee found Mr. Able "Well Qualified" for the office he is seeking. The decision of the Committee was unanimous."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Able has a strong work ethic, which would serve him well as a Circuit Court judge. They noted that his diverse legal practice and his understanding of the practices and procedures in Circuit Court would also assist him on the bench.
(12)   Conclusion:
The Commission found Mr. Able qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hocker meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Hocker was born in 1952. He is 57 years old and a resident of Laurens, South Carolina. Judge Hocker 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 1981.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hocker.
Judge Hocker 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 Hocker reported that he has made $187.40 in campaign expenditures for postage and stationary.
Judge Hocker testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Hocker 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 Hocker to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hocker described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name     Date
(a)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   02/19/02;
(b)   S.C. Probate Bench/Bar   09/13/02;
(c)   Annual Judicial Conference   09/22/02;
(d)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   03/25/03;
(e)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   05/16/03;
(f)   FN-Real Estate     02/07/03;
(g)   S.C. Probate Bench/Bar   09/12/03;
(h)   Annual Judicial Conference   09/21/03;
(i)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   02/04/04;
(j)   Judicial Oath of Office   10/11/04;
(k)   S.C. Probate Bench/Bar   09/17/04;
(l)   Annual Judicial Conference   10/10/04;
(m)   Lawyer's Oath of Office   09/24/04;
(n)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   02/28/05;
(o)   LandAmerica-Title Insurance   09/14/05;
(p)   S.C. Probate Bench/Bar   09/16/05;
(q)   Annual Judicial Conference   09/21/05;
(r)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   02/06/06;
(s)   LandAmerica-Title Insurance   08/23/06;
(t)   S.C. Probate Bench/Bar   09/15/06;
(u)   Annual Judicial Conference   10/04/06;
(v)   S.C. Probate Bench/Bar   09/14/07;
(w)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   02/13/07;
(x)   Annual Judicial Conference   09/09/07;
(y)   S.C. Probate Bench/Bar   09/14/07;
(z)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   02/05/08;
(aa)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   09/12/08;
(bb)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges   02/24/09.
Judge Hocker reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   1999-Jury Trials in Probate Court;
2000-Basic Evidence in Probate Court;
2001-Order Writing;
2002-Contempt Issues in Probate Court;
2003-Will Construction Cases;
2006-Awarding Attorney's Fees in Probate Court;
2007-Reopening the Record, Contempt Revisited, Pro Se Litigants,

Brown v. Coe
(h)   2009-Probate Court Bench Bar (Scheduled in September).
Judge Hocker reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Hocker did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hocker did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hocker has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Hocker 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 Hocker reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Hocker was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1981.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"May 15, 1981 to current: I have been a sole practitioner in Laurens, South Carolina. I have had a general practice with significant experience in Circuit Court-both criminal and civil. I have also been the Associate Probate Judge for Laurens County since March of 1984 which will be discussed later."
Judge Hocker further reported:

Criminal: My most significant litigated matters are discussed below [(c) and (d)]: I have represented criminal clients in General Sessions (and even Magistrate's Court) my entire practice. I typically will receive 8-12 court appointments a year and approximately at least this same number of privately-paid cases annually. I have represented clients charged with a variety of offenses, i.e. murder, felony, DUI, possession and distribution of drugs. The vast majority of criminal cases result in a guilty plea but I have experience throughout my 28 years in trying cases before a jury. A sampling is as follows: Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature, Resisting Arrest/CDV of an High and Aggravated Nature, Manufacturing Methamphetamine, and Lynching.

Civil: My most significant litigated matters are discussed below [(a), (b), and (e)]: Regarding the three significant cases in Common Pleas that he has handled: I have extensive experience dealing with a wide variety of cases, both jury and non-jury. The two most recent cases that I have tried in Court were (1) a breach of contract/fraud case dealing with a sale of an antique automobile. I represented the Defendant. The case was tried before a jury with a verdict in favor of the Defendant. (2) A deed-set-aside case. I represented the Plaintiff. The case was tried non-jury with a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. My practice has been more Plaintiff-oriented but I do represent Defendants. A sampling of what I currently have pending in my Common Pleas practice is as follows: Wrongful-death and Survival case representing the deceased's family, Mechanic's Lien foreclosure case representing the contractor, and a Fraud action over the sale of a piece of property representing the purchaser. I also represent The Palmetto Bank and The City of Laurens Commission of Public Works, which provides additional cases in the civil area.
Judge Hocker reported the frequency of his court appearances as follows:
(a)   Federal:   None;
(b)   State:     Average of five times a week.
Judge Hocker reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters as follows:
(a)   Civil:     25%;
(b)   Criminal:   25%;
(c)   Domestic:   40%.
Judge Hocker reported the percentage of his practice in trial court as follows:
(a)   Jury:     5%;
(b)   Non-jury:   95%.
Judge Hocker provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Hocker's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   Charles Gray and Corey Gray vs. Georgia Pacific Corp., 97-CP-30-110, 111,112.

I represented the Plaintiffs. This case involved a horrible vehicle accident with these two brothers. They both sustained severe 2nd and 3rd degree burns over most of their bodies. Suit was filed and a settlement was reached in 1997. This case is significant for several reasons. One, novel computer technology was used by the Plaintiff in the mediation process. Secondly, it is significant because the Plaintiffs were and are a living example of a true will to live and remain productive citizens, which they are today. Thirdly, significant discovery took place.
(b)   Glen Meadows, LLC, et. al. vs. The Palmetto Bank, et. al., 03-CP-23-4541.

I represented the Defendant Palmetto Bank. This case involved a suit by the Plaintiff-employer against three Banks. The Plaintiff had an employee who stole $145,000.00 over several years by making out and endorsing numerous checks written on accounts with the Defendants. These checks were made payable to the Bank and each time a deposit was made to The Palmetto Bank. Extensive discovery took place. The case was significant because the law was very competitive between the UCC code and the requirements and duty of care placed upon a customer in contrast to the basic principals governing a banking institution's duty of care.
(c)   State of South Carolina vs. Allenna Ward, 07-GS-30-359, 362, 364, 365, 369.

This criminal case dealt with a teacher charged with criminal sexual misconduct with five underage students. There was a tremendous amount of publicity nationwide. I was one of the two lawyers representing this Defendant. The case was significant for several reasons. One, the vast majority of teachers charged in this state and other states were only involved with one student and this case had five. Secondly, it was significant simply because of the media attention it had from the day of the arrest to the sentencing.
(d)   State of South Carolina v. Comest S. Allen, 99-GS-30-661.

I represented the Defendant who had been charged with armed robbery. He had been in jail/prison the majority of his life. He was accused of going into a Subway restaurant in Clinton, S.C. at midnight (closing time) and robbing the store. The robbery was on surveillance video. The Defendant was very accustomed to the legal system so he continuously filed motions, briefs, objections, etc. contrary to my advice. This case was significant for several reasons. First, he required me to file a Motion with the Court to allow a "re-enactment" of the crime wherein he would be allowed to wear what the "person" was wearing and would act out exactly as the person on the video in an attempt to offer the comparison of the videos as not being him. To the shock of everyone, the Court granted the Motion. The "re-enactment" was done but never an issue. This is due to the fact the only real evidence that the State had (and it was not the video) was the identification by the store clerk. However, under legal principles, we were successful in getting the photo identification line-up and the resulting testimony/in-court identification suppressed. The trial Judge agreed with our defense that the identification was clearly tainted hereby justifying a suppression of the clerk's testimony. Consequently, a motion for directed verdict was made and granted.
(e)   Ernest Sullivan vs. John Walk, et. al., 06-CP-30-890.

A lady died and left a significant life insurance policy naming, not her husband-the Plaintiff, but an uncle-the Defendant. This lady died of cancer and made the beneficiary change from the husband to the uncle in the latter stages of her illness. I represented the Defendant uncle. He claimed that she made the change to him because she trusted him to insure that her three children (not all by the husband) would be taken care of. The significant issue in the case was whether or not she had the mental capacity to effectuate the change of beneficiary. Significant also was the fact that we had to recreate the last months of this cancer-stricken lady's life on the issue of competency. The case was resolved with the Plaintiff receiving nothing and the Defendant receiving the entire policy proceeds (he agreed to put a portion of the money in trust for the children). Also, it should be noted that a companion Interpleader action was filed by the Insurance Carrier.
The following is Judge Hocker's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   Shorb v. Shorb 372 S.C. 623 (Ct. App 2007)

I was the trial lawyer but associated another lawyer for the appeal. I was not shown as counsel but was copied with all correspondence from the Court of Appeals and I assisted counsel with the appeal. The case was novel on the issue of equitable division of Walmart stock options in a divorce. I represented the Wife who was awarded 55% of the Husband's stock options along with a monetary award concerning these options. The Wife prevailed on the amount of stock options awarded her by the trial court.
(b)   South Carolina Department of Social Services vs, Defendants (Court of Appeals 2000-unpublished opinion)

I represented the father of a teenage daughter who accused him of sexual abuse. The significance of this case was the Court's defining "sexual abuse" to the facts of the case. We were successful in obtaining a reversal and remand in the case.
(c)   Hellams v. Harnist 284 S.C. 256 (1985)

I represented the Defendants in this deed reformation case. I was successful in getting the Court to reverse the trial court's reformation of the subject deed. The case sets out good law with respect to deeds, mutual mistakes in deeds, and property descriptions. (Note: I had only been out of law school four years when the appeal was decided).
(d)   Bobby Tucker vs. Debra Wasson 90-759

This case was appealed by the mother in a visitation case. I represented the father. The issue being whether the father's previously ordered supervised visitation should be changed. The Lower Court ruled in favor of the father. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The case was significant for several reasons. During the time the case was tried, issues of visitation being supervised or unsupervised were fairly uncommon. Too, the Guardian ad Litem played a role in this case possibly somewhat differently than a Guardian ad Litem today.
(e)   Flinn v. Crittenden, 287 S.C. 427 (1985)

I represented the Plaintiff in a nursing home liability suit against the Defendant nursing home. The Lower Court granted summary judgment in the Defendant's favor. The appellate court affirmed the ruling finding no liability. Justice Goolsby gave a strong dissent which is significant because it sets out a good review of nursing home liability.
Judge Hocker reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Judge Hocker reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"I have been the Associate Probate Judge for Laurens County since March of 1984 (251/2 years) and appointed by the elected Probate Judge. Probate Courts in South Carolina have jurisdiction over Estates, Mental Commitments, Conservatorships and Guardianships. During my tenure on the bench, I have presided over numerous cases not only in Laurens County but across the State. I have had the honor and privilege of being appointed by the Supreme Court to preside over many cases in other counties for a variety of reasons. I have had the opportunity to preside over jury trials as well as non-jury cases during my tenure. Even though non-jury cases are the most prevalent in Probate Court, I would like to give some of the following examples of jury trials I have presided over (non-exclusive list). (Note: Probate jury trials are identical to Circuit Court jury trials in all respects. A jury trial in Probate Court is conducted either in conjunction with a term of Common Pleas Court in Circuit Court or a special Probate jury term is authorized by the Supreme Court. In either situation, a Circuit Court jury pool is utilized)."
Examples:
(1)   Barnett Estate-Anderson County: Six day jury trial with five lawyers and numerous lay and expert witnesses. Since this was the only case for that week of Circuit Court, I did all the initial jury pool qualification before the jury pool was voir dired for the particular case.
(2)   Owings Estate-Laurens County: Four day jury trial with five lawyers and numerous lay and expert witnesses. The same is true in this case concerning jury pool qualification.
(3)   Lester Estate-Newberry County: Two day jury trial in September 2008. A special term of court was scheduled with a Circuit Court jury pool summoned and used. As in the above cases, I presided over all aspects of the trial including jury qualification, jury voir dire, pre-trial and post-trial matters.
(4)   Smith Estate-Laurens County: A several day jury trial is scheduled for a special term of Probate Court later in the 2009 year.
(5)   Fulmer Estate-Newberry County: A several day jury trial is scheduled for a special term of Probate Court in September 2009.
The point being to the above summary of jury trial Judicial experiences is that I exercised the same role as that of a Circuit Court Judge and did everything that is required of a Circuit Court Judge presiding over a civil jury trial. It should also be noted that the Probate Court handles a wide variety of civil issues. The rules of evidence are the same in Probate Court as in Circuit Court. The Probate Court follows the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Hocker provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   Melvin Weathers v. Robert P. Bolt as Administrator of the Estate of Virginia B. Morris, 293 S.C. 486.

The Primary issue in this case was whether the Plaintiff had a common-law marriage with the decedent thus allowing him to inherit from the Estate. I ruled against the Plaintiff and my Order was appealed to Circuit Court and then to the Court of Appeals. Both appellate Courts affirmed my ruling.
(b)   Department of Health and Human Services vs. Moses L. Miller, Personal Representative of the Estate of Genobia Washington, 2005-UP-154.

There were several issues in this case: 1. Jurisdiction of the DHHS claim; 2. The distinction between a Medicaid lien for nursing home services and a Medicaid lien for medical services provided as a result of an accident; 3. The right of the Court to sua sponte reopen the record. Both the Circuit Court and Court of Appeals affirmed my ruling.
(c)   In the Matter of Mildred Williams, 97-ES-30-035

An emergency action was filed by a banking institution seeking a Protective Order and seeking a declaration as to the competency of Ms. Williams with respect to a very substantial investment account held by the bank. Several hearings were held in the case. At one time eight lawyers were involved. Ms. Williams also filed an extraordinary Writ of Prohibition in the S.C. Supreme Court (case number unknown) objecting to my jurisdiction over the case. This Writ action was ultimately dismissed. The merits of the case before my court were ultimately dismissed after the competency issue was resolved.
(d)   In the Matter of Merrilee O. DeVinney, 01-GC-100/104

This case involved a very significant and somewhat novel issue related to the effect, if any, of a trust on a spouse's claim to an elective share in the Estate. My Order was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
(e)   In the Matter of the Estate of Bobby Gene Barnett, 03-ES-04-174

This case is ongoing which involves a large Estate and a substantial controversy among the family members along with a companion case involving two bonding companies which had bonds in place when a prior Personal Representative was in office. There have been 15-20 separate hearings along with a six day jury trial on the issue of the validity of the Last Will and Testament.
Judge Hocker reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge:

"Practicing attorney representing clients such as the City of Laurens Commission of Public Works and The Palmetto Bank."
Judge Hocker further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I was found qualified but not nominated as a candidate for the Eighth Circuit Seat No. 2 in the fall of 2008."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Hocker's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Hocker is married to Susan Gayle Lindler Hocker. He has two children.
Judge Hocker reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   Laurens County Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association;
(d)   S.C. Association of Probate Judges;
(e)   Certified Circuit Court Mediator/Arbitrator (ADR).
Judge Hocker provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"I am active in my church which is the First United Methodist Church in Laurens. I serve as Chairman of the Church Council and I teach an adult Sunday school class. I have been active with the Boy Scouts serving as Troop Committee Chairman. I belong to the KAPPA ALPHA Order Court of Honor which is an elite organization of men across the State who are KAPPA ALPHA alumni. Several years ago, I received the South Carolina Pro Bono Service Award. Finally, I was voted "Best Attorney" in 2009 by the subscribers to the Clinton Chronicle."
Judge Hocker further reported:
(a)   I have 28 years experience practicing in Circuit Court both in Common Pleas-civil and General Sessions-criminal. I have tried cases jury and non-jury. I believe that I have more than sufficient legal experience to qualify me for this position.
(b)   I have 251/2 years on the Judicial Bench as the Associate Probate Judge for Laurens County. I have tried cases jury and non-jury. I have presided over cases across this State. I believe that I have more than sufficient judicial experience to qualify me for this position.
(c)   I have never had any grievances or ethical complaints filed against me in the 28 years I have been a practicing attorney.
(d)   I have never had any grievances or ethical complaints filed against me in the 25 1/2 years I have been a Judge.
(e)   I am a Christian and active in my Church and community to the extent that my part-time judicial position allows.
(f)   I have a stable and loving marriage of 33 years with two wonderful children who are both adopted.
(g)   I believe that I have the right judicial temperament and sense of fairness and compassion that will allow me to be a good Circuit Court Judge.
(h)   That I meet the nine criteria used by the Commission in determining that I am qualified:
1.   I meet the Constitutional qualifications;
2.   I am ethically fit;
3.   I have the necessary academic and professional abilities;
4.   I have the required character;
5.   I have a positive reputation;
6.   I have excellent physical health;
7.   I have no mental health problems;
8.   I have the necessary legal and judicial experience;
9.   I have the necessary judicial temperament.
Finally, I am humbled in having the opportunity to apply for this position. I believe that the above factors that I have listed have influenced me in being the type of Judge I have been and the type of Judge that I will continue to be whether (and hopefully) in the Circuit Court arena or continue in the Probate Court arena.
The Piedmont Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Hocker to be "Qualified" in the following categories: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; experience; and judicial temperament. He was found "Well-Qualified" for the following categories: physical health and mental stability. The committee stated, "We find Mr. Hocker qualified for the office he is seeking. The decision of the Committee was unanimous."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Hocker has a good reputation as an Associate Probate Judge. They noted his "down-to-earth" demeanor and his legal experience would benefit him on the Circuit Court bench.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Hocker qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Hodges meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Hodges was born in 1970. He is 39 years old and a resident of Greenwood, South Carolina. Mr. Hodges 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 1996.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hodges.
Mr. Hodges 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. Hodges reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Hodges testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Hodges 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. Hodges to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hodges described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name   Date
(a)   2004 Annual Solicitor's Conference   09/26/04 - 09/29/04;
(b)   2005 Annual Solicitor's Conference   09/25/05 - 09/28/05;
(c)   2006 Capital Litigation Seminar   05/08/06 - 05/10/06;
(d)   2006 Annual Solicitor's Conference   09/24/06 - 09/27/06;
(e)   The Career Prosecutor Course   06/03/07 - 06/13/07;
(f)   2007 Annual Solicitor's Conference   09/23/07 - 09/26/07;
(g)   2008 Annual Solicitor's Conference   09/28/08 - 10/01/08;
(h)   Capital Litigation Jury Qualification   07/08/09 - 07/10/09.
Mr. Hodges reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   At the 2002 Annual Solicitor's Conference, I participated as a lecturer on the topic of pretrial hearings involving the admissibility of confessions, including issues relating to Miranda v. Arizona and Jackson v. Denno.
(b)   In 2004, I taught a multi-week course on a variety of legal issues including Constitutional Law, search and seizure, and the laws of arrest to a group of Abbeville Police Department reserve police officers who were preparing to be tested on those subjects.
(c)   On March 20, 2007, I spoke to the Leadership Greenwood Class of 2007 about the role of the Solicitor's Office in the court process. Sponsored by the Greenwood Chamber of Commerce, Leadership Greenwood focuses on "developing future leaders through a year-long series of monthly full day sessions addressing a variety of issues, opportunities, and challenges facing Greenwood County."
(d)   On March 23, 2007, I participated as a panel speaker at the Governor's seminar on Compliance: Best Practices for Implementing the Victims' Bill of Rights. I spoke specifically about the challenges faced by prosecutors in maintaining contact with transient victims, and ideas about how to keep them notified about and involved in the court process.
(e)   On September 13, 2007, I spoke to about six hundred student athletes, coaches, fraternity and sorority members, and faculty on The Consequences of Hazing at Lander University. I stressed the dangers of hazing, and the potential for criminal and civil liability, through the use of examples from both local and national incidents. I repeated that address to another group of students on September 24, 2008.
(f)   On September 26, 2007, I spoke at the 2007 Annual Solicitor's Conference Death Penalty Update regarding a novel issue involving the admissibility of wiretap tapes on which I had submitted a brief to the South Carolina Court of Appeals during a capital trial earlier that year.
(g)   On January 16, 2009, I taught a CLE at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy entitled "Motion Practice: Anticipating and Responding to Defense Motions in Limine."
(h)   Between September 18 and September 20, 2009, I participated as an instructor at the "Prosecution Bootcamp 2009" held at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The goal of the course was to provide training to inexperienced prosecutors.
(i)   On March 20, 2009, I taught a CLE at the South Carolina Sheriff's Association entitled "Bond Estreatments."
Mr. Hodges reported publishing the following article:

"The First Challenge to South Carolina's Wiretapping Law," The Higher Standard, Volume 1, Issue 3, October 15, 2008
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hodges did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hodges did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hodges has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Hodges 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. Hodges reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Hodges was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1996.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
Sept. 1996 - Jan. 2005   Assistant Solicitor, Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office

As an Assistant Solicitor I prosecuted a wide variety of cases in General Sessions court in Abbeville, Greenwood, Laurens and Newberry Counties. I benefited from working in a small office where I was quickly given the opportunity to handle significant cases. I had my first jury trial within two weeks of being sworn into the bar and was assigned my first homicide within a year. For five years I was the office drug prosecutor and tried countless drug-related offenses across the Eighth Circuit. As drug prosecutor, my duties also included the resolution of a considerable number of civil asset forfeiture actions.
Jan. 2005 - Present Deputy Solicitor, Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office

In January of 2005 I was promoted to Deputy Solicitor for Greenwood County. I supervise four Assistant Solicitors, a Court Administrator, a Victim/Witness Advocate and an Investigator. I advise the Assistant Solicitors on charging decisions and plea agreements, and often sit with them in trial to provide training and guidance. I coordinate the scheduling of all trials, pleas, hearings, and appearances for approximately nineteen weeks of General Sessions Court per year. I also personally prosecute the majority of the violent crimes that occur in Greenwood County.
Mr. Hodges further reported:

With regard to my experience in criminal matters, I have been a prosecutor for nearly twelve years. I have handled thousands of criminal cases, from the simplest DUI to the most complicated capital murder. I spend about twenty weeks a year in General Sessions Court. After spending that much time, and handling that volume of cases, I believe that I have developed an excellent barometer for appropriate criminal sentencing. The sheer number of cases that are processed through General Sessions Court requires that most be disposed of through plea negotiations, and I have presented countless pleas to Circuit Judges who have accepted my negotiations and recommendations. I have also participated in a significant number of jury trials, thereby gaining a firm grip on the rules of evidence and the body of case law related to criminal practice.

My experience as a criminal prosecutor has provided few opportunities for practice in Common Pleas Court. During my time as a drug prosecutor, I did file and pursue a fair number of civil forfeiture actions but all were settled short of trial. I have also pursued a couple of nuisance actions, one of which involved some litigation before it ultimately settled. My background in managing a large criminal docket and ensuring that cases are processed in a timely manner would, I think, help prepare me to manage a civil docket. The skills I have gained in bringing parties together to settle cases short of trial would also be an asset to a Circuit Judge presiding over civil matters. However, I do recognize that my limited experience in civil matters is a weakness and I have been working diligently to compensate for that lack of experience. I always read the advance sheets, and I have been re-reading and briefing the advance sheets from the last year. Finally, I would plan to attend CLEs on additional civil topics to help compensate for my lack of experience in those areas.
Mr. Hodges reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
(a)   federal:   none;
(b)   state:     about ten full days per month.
Mr. Hodges reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       0.01%;
(b)   Criminal:   99.9%;
(c)   Domestic:   0%.
Mr. Hodges reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows:
(a)   jury:         2%;
(b)   non-jury:   98%.
Mr. Hodges provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Hodges's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   State v. Steven Bixby, Rita Bixby and Arthur Bixby.

On December 8, 2003, Deputy Danny Wilson went to the Bixby residence in Abbeville County to attempt to settle a dispute between the Bixbys and construction workers who were engaged in a highway widening project in front of their residence. Steven Bixby shot Deputy Wilson with a high-powered rifle, cuffed him with   his own handcuffs and dragged him inside the home where he died of his wounds. Bixby also shot and killed Constable Donnie Ouzts who had responded to a report that Wilson had been shot. After a fourteen-hour standoff with local and state law enforcement a gun battle erupted between the Bixbys and SLED. Former SLED Chief Robert Stewart said it was "more gunfire than I've ever experienced in over 30 years." Steven and Arthur Bixby ultimately surrendered and were charged with the murder of the two law enforcement officers. Rita Bixby was charged with Accessory Before the Fact to Murder because of her prior knowledge and encouragement of the plan to kill the officers.

The State sought the death penalty against Steven Bixby. I was one of three lawyers on the prosecution team that tried the case in February of 2007. Because of extensive pre-trial publicity we selected and sequestered   a jury from Chesterfield County. Concerns over the Bixbys' ties to a militia group in New Hampshire led to extreme security measures including a law enforcement perimeter around the courthouse and an armed convoy to transport the prosecution team to and from court.

A case of first impression arose when the defense moved to suppress a tape of the gun battle that was generated through the use of a SLED wiretap. The applicable statute, that had never been tested, requires the motion to suppress be decided by a panel of three judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. I filed a brief on the issue and the Court of Appeals ruled that the statute was constitutional and that the tapes were admissible.

Steven Bixby was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death.

The State also sought the death penalty against Rita Bixby. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the State's notice of intention to seek the death penalty. The State appealed and the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that a charge of Accessory Before the Fact to Murder does not render a defendant eligible for the death penalty. State v. Bixby, 373 S.C. 74 (2007).

I was again one of three attorneys on the prosecution team that brought Rita Bixby to trial in October of 2007. She was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Arthur Bixby has been found incompetent and is currently in the custody of the Department of Mental Health.
(b)   State v. Joey Haymes.

In November of 2004 the family of Billy Ray Adams reported him missing. A deputy found his body in a wooded area behind his house. A BOLO was issued for the victim's missing vehicle. The defendant was stopped in Spartanburg County while driving the victim's car. I had prosecuted Haymes earlier that year for a Breach of Trust where Adams was the victim, and there was some animosity by Haymes about the restitution that he was ordered to pay to the victim. At trial on the murder charge, the defendant claimed that he had shot the victim in self defense.   Through the testimony of a forensic pathologist, and successful cross examination of the defendant, I was able to disprove the defendant's claims   of self defense. The defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
(c)   State v. Freddie Edwards.

On July 16, 2005, Freddie Edwards, a fairly prominent business owner in Greenwood, shot and killed George Freeman during a dispute over a two dollar bet during a poker game at the defendant's residence. I called the case to trial in August of 2006. The defendant was convicted of murder and received a thirty year sentence. An interesting footnote to this case is that the defendant is the father of Armanti Edwards, the star quarterback of Appalachian State University. It is encouraging to see that he has continued to be successful despite the mistakes of his father.
(d)   Eighth Circuit Solicitor v. Club Weekend.

Club Weekend, a Greenwood nightclub, was the site of ongoing crowding, noise, violent crime and drug activity. Following a murder (that I subsequently prosecuted) in the parking lot, I filed a nuisance action in 2002 against the owner of the building and the proprietors of the nightclub. After an evidentiary hearing in December of 2002, the Court issued an Order for Temporary Injunction that effectively closed the nightclub's doors. A settlement in January of 2003 terminated Club Weekend's lease and placed restrictions on any future use of the property. This case was significant because it eliminated an establishment that posed a serious safety threat to both the public and local law enforcement.
(e)   State v. Jerome Chisholm.

Jerome Chisholm molested a six-year-old girl who contracted HIV as a result of the assault. I called the case to trial in June of 2009. Based upon the victim's brave testimony along with corroborating forensic evidence, including DNA, the jury convicted the Defendant of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor in the 1st Degree. The Court sentenced him to the maximum thirty year sentence. The case is significant because it removed a dangerous pedophile from our community.
Mr. Hodges reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.
Mr. Hodges further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"Last year I ran for the office of Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 1. I was nominated, but ultimately withdrew shortly before the election."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Hodges's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Mr. Hodges is married to Dawn Puderbaugh Hodges. He has one child.
Mr. Hodges reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Greenwood County Bar Association.
Mr. Hodges provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Ancient Free Masons of South Carolina - Past Master of Mathews Lodge No. 358. (Steward 2003, Senior Deacon 2004, Junior Warden 2005, Senior Warden 2006, Worshipful Master 2007);

(b)   Volunteer for United Way Day of Caring, yearly 1998-2003;

(c)   Volunteer for Kiwanis Kids' Triathlon, yearly 2006-08;
(d)   Greenwood Community Theater - acted the part of Sir Lionel in a production of Camelot in June of 2002, and acted the part of The Guard in a production of Twelve Angry Jurors in March of 2008.
The Piedmont Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Hodges "Well-Qualified" for two of the nine evaluative criteria: physical health and mental stability. They found him "Qualified" for seven of the criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The committee provided the following statement: "The Piedmont Citizens Committee interviewed Andrew M. Hodges at the Greenwood County Courthouse during the evening of September 9, 2009. We find Mr. Hodges qualified for the office he is seeking. The decision of the Committee was unanimous."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that Mr. Hodge's extensive criminal law experience as a prosecutor would assist him in serving as a Circuit Court Judge. They also noted his active civic involvement in his community.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Hodges qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Smithdeal meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Smithdeal was born in 1967. He is 42 years old and a resident of Greenwood, South Carolina. Mr. Smithdeal provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1992.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Smithdeal.
Mr. Smithdeal 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. Smithdeal reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures but he stated, "I had some resumes and business cards printed last year regarding my prior candidacy and [I] expect to update those at some point."
Mr. Smithdeal testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Smithdeal 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. Smithdeal to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Smithdeal described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name   Date
(a)   IWA Spring Seminar   05/08/09;
(b)   SCACDL Blues, BBQ and Bar CLE   07/09/09;
(c)   SCAJ Annual Convention   08/6-7/09;
(d)   E-Discovery After 12/1/06 Changes   04/20/07;
(e)   SCTLA Annual Convention   08/02/07;
(f)   25th SCIWA Conference   11/01/07;
(g)   Title Insurance Claims and Underwriting   11/06/07;
(h)   Fundamentals of Elder Law   11/27/07;
(i)   SCCAWC Spring Seminar   05/12/06;
(j)   SCACDL 2nd Annual Criminal Law   07/14/06;
(k)   SCTLA Annual Convention   08/03/06;
(l)   Attorney ECF Training   01/19/05;
(m)   SCTLA Annual Convention   08/04/05;
(n)   Newly Adopted Med Mal   10/14/05;
(o)   Dove Shoot   11/21/05;
(p)   Electronic Courtrooms   01/01/04;
(q)   SCTLA Lunch and Learn   01/30/04;
(r)   Negotiating the Hazards Real Estate   06/11/04;
(s)   Winning with Multi-media   06/25/04;
(t)   SCTLA Annual Convention   08/05/04;
(u)   New Lawyer's Oath   08/06/04.
Mr. Smithdeal reported that he has taught the following law-related course:
(a)   S.C. Bar- Law School for Non-Lawyers;
(b)   Worker's Compensation-volunteer program that helps the general public understand various types and aspects of the law.
Mr. Smithdeal reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Smithdeal did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Smithdeal did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Smithdeal has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Smithdeal 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. Smithdeal reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Smithdeal was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1992.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   Judson Ayers & Associates, P.C. 1992-95, practice focused on general civil litigation, Family Court, Workers Compensation, criminal defense, social security disability, real estate closings, consumer law, employment law;
(b)   Ayers & Smithdeal, P.C. 1995-97, practice areas substantially the same but fewer real estate closings;
(c)   Ayers, Smithdeal & Bettis, P.C. 1997-present, practice areas substantially the same although I have not done as much Family Court work over the past five years.
Mr. Smithdeal further reported:

Criminal Experience - Over the past five years and I have handled cases involving CSC with a minor, armed robbery, burglary, accessory before the fact to murder (death penalty notified), trafficking various drugs, forgery, DUI, ABHAN, ABWIK and many other types of cases. Most notably, I was appointed on the notorious State v. Rita Bixby case. The Solicitor filed notice that the State intended to seek the death penalty. I therefore requested death penalty certified co-counsel to assist. I was the second or third attorney appointed to represent Rita Bixby as each of the previous attorneys claimed some sort of conflict. I took the case and fought for my client because I have taken an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. I take that oath very seriously. I knew that the case would take a tremendous amount of time and that I may lose some friends in the law enforcement community as the victims in the case were a Sheriff's Deputy and a State Constable - both of whom were widely respected and loved in Abbeville County.

The most pressing issue in the case was the death penalty. Without precedent in South Carolina or in any other State, the question was whether a person charged as an accessory before the fact to murder was subject to the death penalty. Co-counsel and I filed a motion to dismiss and took the position that pursuant to the Death Penalty Statute, the answer was "no." The trial court agreed with the defense and the State took a direct appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the trial court (Toal dissent) and our client was no longer facing the death penalty if convicted.

My co-counsel and I filed and argued many other pre-trial motions including: reasonable bail; speedy trial (not granted but deadline given to State to try case); change of venue (granted with consent of State); exclusion of confessions or other inculpatory statements (several granted over objection); motions to compel discovery; various ex parte motions for costs and fees; and a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the indictment. All motions were researched and argued by us.

The case was tried during the Fall of 2007 amidst a great deal of publicity. There were numerous witnesses called by the State including: fingerprint; firearms; crime scene; pathology; DNA and computer experts. There were also lay witnesses and police officers who were examined. Dozens of exhibits were entered into evidence and/or marked for identification. My co-counsel and I divided the trial equally between us. One of the more interesting issues that arose during the trial was the admissibility of statements made by a co-defendant that tended to incriminate our client. This is one of the issues from the case that is currently on appeal. The client was convicted and was sentenced to life in prison.

While some of the major issues in the Bixby case were new to me and to the State of South Carolina, many of the issues were the same ones I look at on a regular basis in making decisions and advising clients. The vast majority of my criminal cases result in a plea, but anticipating issues such as those that arose in the Bixby case help me to provide the best representation I can offer.

Civil Experience - The largest percentage of my practice involves civil matters. I represent people in the Court of Common Pleas most often however. At any given time I have 5-10 cases in litigation in Common Pleas. Currently, I am representing a lady who alleges that her OB/GYN stapled her ureter shut with resulting kidney loss. I am representing a lady who was injured when a driver sending text messages crossed the center line and into my client's path. The defendant has had multiple citations and wrecks in the past ten years and after investigating these prior wrecks, I discovered that texting has been the cause of at least one of these. I recently settled a case for almost a million dollars for a lady who had undergone three surgeries and had over two hundred thousand dollars in medical bills. She was rear ended and her vehicle totaled by a commercial vehicle. I represent a trustee who is being sued for breach of trust. My client has brought counter claims for declaratory relief. I represent an attorney in fact under a durable general power of attorney for misappropriation of assets and a large national corporation in a zoning appeal. These are just a few examples of my civil practice.

Unlike criminal cases, civil trial work allows for extensive pre-trial discovery which gives all the parties a chance to fully evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. While this is time consuming and expensive, the justice system is usually the beneficiary of more settlements and fewer trials.   Most of my cases utilize expert testimony in some form. From the very beginning of my career I have been in the courtroom trying predominantly civil cases. Issues range from pleading deficiencies, service problems, discovery abuse, expert qualifications, pretrial, evidentiary, in limine and dispositive motions to scheduling witness appearances, judge preferences, jury selection, and post trial motions and appeal. While most cases settle, all cases must be prepared as if a trial will be necessary.

I have represented clients at every stage of civil litigation from initial client/case evaluation to appeal to post judgment supplemental proceedings and collections. Besides the cases in which litigation is necessary, I have over one hundred active cases at any given time. I mostly represent plaintiffs. I have represented several past employees of the Clerk of Court's office, and also derive a fair portion of my practice from attorney referrals. These two sources are a point of pride for me as both referral sources have the opportunity to interact with and observe many attorneys and select the one whom they consider most qualified.
Mr. Smithdeal reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   No federal ct appearances in last five years;
(b)   State:     Monthly.
Mr. Smithdeal reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     75%;
(b)   Criminal:   20%;
(c)   Domestic:   5%.
Mr. Smithdeal reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     5%- most criminal and civil matters settle before trial;
(b)   Non-jury:   95%.
Mr. Smithdeal provided that he most often served as sole counsel, "or if the matter was referred to me by another lawyer, chief counsel."
The following is Mr. Smithdeal's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   Fisher, as Pers. Rep. v. Fielder, MD, Baarcke, DMD, and Wallace Thompson Hospital.

This was my first medical malpractice trial. Rodney Fisher was a 28 year old, poor, uninsured man who died from an improperly treated abscess tooth. The infection spread to his lower jaw and throat and he suffocated to death while in the hospital. He was unemployed and lived with his parents. He had no children. The defendants were a highly visible and popular family physician who had delivered and/or treated a large portion the population of the small county for forty years, a popular dentist and the county's sole hospital. The physician had been sued for malpractice in two prior cases. One jury was hung 11-1 in favor of the defendant and the other was a defense verdict hung by the trial judge under the 13th juror doctrine. The trial courts in each case later changed venue in these prior cases for an inability to find an impartial jury.

I moved for a change of venue in the Fisher case pre trial based upon the events of the previous trials, the popularity of the three defendants and the ex parte communications between the decedent's treating physicians and the defendants. I submitted dozens of affidavits from ordinary citizens of the county, newspaper articles extolling the good deeds of the defendants and a memorandum of law supporting my motion. The motion was denied.

One of the defense experts who was a local physician, in his deposition and again during the trial, testified that he had never heard of a particular medical term which was crucial to my theory of the case. Fortunately, during the discovery phase, I had located a woman whose home was in a very remote section of the county and who had suffered the same condition as my client and was also treated by this expert. I traveled to this woman's home, listened to her story and obtained a medical authorization for her records. I also subpoenaed this woman to trial. During the cross examination of this doctor, he stuck with his feigned ignorance of my "outlandish theory". I then presented him with his former patient and his own records showing clearly that this expert was not only aware of the medical condition and terminology but that he was willing to lie to the jury to protect his local buddy.

The trial lasted a week and the jury returned a verdict on Saturday afternoon. The issue was whether the defendants had deviated from the accepted standard of care in their respective professions and if so, whether those deviations were the direct cause of the decedent's death. The courtroom was full of local physicians who were there to lend moral and visible support to the defendants. The defense attorneys were much older and vastly more experienced than me. Despite the odds, the plaintiff's mom and dad prevailed in true David v. Goliath fashion and the jury's verdict was for the plaintiffs.
(b)   Ukadike v. S.C. Department of Corrections,

Kenneth Ukadike had a PhD, two bachelor degrees and an associate's degree. He taught continuing education courses to the employees of the Department of Corrections. He had an exemplary record of annual evaluations. Mr. Ukadike had been working in same job with the Department for over ten years. He had been passed over for promotion numerous times. He was even passed over for a job previously held by inmates. His problem? He was black and from Nigeria. He also spoke with an accent.

On behalf of my client, I filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The case was of particular concern for my client because he was still employed by the Department at the time of the litigation and the main perpetrator of the illegal discrimination according to my client was the warden himself. He was therefore in a very precarious position.

Discovery was extensive with the plaintiff's deposition alone lasting three days. Both sides named numerous witnesses and the documentary evidence was voluminous. The case was put together with a mixture of direct and circumstantial evidence some of which was excluded by the trial judge. Mediation was attempted but the parties were apart by many thousands of dollars.

The trial lasted for three days. There were approximately twenty total witnesses called to testify. Some of the plaintiff's witnesses were current or former employees of the Department and were examined pursuant to Rule 611 SCRE. The testimony and evidence proved that Mr. Ukadike had been the subject of ridicule and humiliation at the hands of his supervisors in the Department. They had told him to "go back to Africa" and had mimicked the way he spoke to inmates and other employees. They had passed him over for junior, white employees with only high school diplomas. In the end the plaintiff prevailed and he broke down in tears in release of the tension and stress he had been through over the years. This was the first and only time the Department of Corrections had been sued and lost on a nation of origin claim. Mr. Ukadike was able to go back to work with his head held high. He still works in the same job today.
(c)   State v. Bixby, a brief description of this case is set forth above.
(d)   North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Effie Gant,

Effie Gant had purchased a whole life insurance policy on her daughter's life through the plaintiff corporation. The daughter passed away at an early age and the insurance company sued Ms. Gant requesting a declaratory judgment that the policy was void because she had defrauded the company by failing to inform the company that the daughter had diabetes among other conditions. Ms. Gant came to our office with the lawsuit and we started investigating the allegations. We discovered that the application for insurance was actually completed and forged by the insurance agent. A counter claim was filed for breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act and fraud. The insurance company defaulted and after giving it ample time to remedy the problem, an entry of default was granted and the case was set for a damages hearing.

The jury verdict was and continues to be one of the largest in Greenwood County history. Issues in the case included: Rule 55 SCRCP set aside of entry of default; admissibility of the plaintiff's net worth; election of remedies; post trial motions for new trial absolute and remittur; and then the appeal. The case was ultimately settled while the appeal was pending.
(e)   Rainey v. S.C. Department of Transportation,

This was the case that nobody wanted. A young girl and her friends were traveling back to the Governor's School in Greenville after having visited a Lander University art exhibit. They were driving on Highway 25 North at Ware Shoals, S.C. when they ran head on into a south bound car driven by a Greenwood lady and her friends returning home from a shopping trip in Greenville. Three people were killed and the rest were seriously injured. The young girl was charged with failure to yield after she ran through a "Y" configured intersection into oncoming traffic. The young girl and her family went to several attorneys before finding one who would take her case.

The case took many months to investigate pre-suit. My partners and I went to the intersection and surveyed it carefully. We determined that the intersection was dangerous as Highway 25 which was two lanes coming from Greenwood split with one lane crossing Highway 25 Southbound like an "y" and going into Ware Shoals and the second lane continuing north towards Greenville. A person who happened to be in the left lane was forced to exit across Highway 25 Southbound towards Ware Shoals.

The yield sign facing traffic going into Ware Shoals resembled an onramp yield sign except the traffic being yielded to was oncoming instead of going in the same direction as is the situation with an onramp. There were no signs to indicate in which direction to expect traffic. There were no signs informing a driver that the left lane would take him off of Highway 25. The young girl, having never driven in the area was in the left hand lane. The road veered off to the left and she spotted the yield sign. The oncoming lane was at such an acute angle that instinctively she looked over her left shoulder for traffic with which she may have been merging. She saw no cars coming and continued for an instant when a she ran head on into the other car which was topping the hill coming south. The results were catastrophic.

Because of the severity of the collision and injuries the young girl was charged criminally in Family Court. My firm and I knew however that this child was not at fault. We started digging. Through our research and investigations we were able to determine that there had been numerous wrecks and even fatalities at the same intersection in the years preceding this wreck. Without exception, the person charged in these prior wrecks was heading north and was forced into Ware Shoals by the split in the highway and failed to yield. Even more interesting was the fact that the prior "at fault" drivers were all from out of town and unfamiliar with the intersection.

As a result of the investigation we were asked to act as lead counsel for all the people in both cars. We proceeded with discovery involving dozens of depositions of out of state witnesses, local witnesses, physicians and experts of various types. The individual cases were consolidated and prepared for trial. Pretrial motions were extensive. A special term was set in Greenwood County as we had over fifty witnesses subpoenaed and prepared to testify. The case settled for well in excess of the statutory caps on the day the trial was scheduled to begin. The young girl was vindicated and shortly after that the highway was reconfigured with simple remedial measures. To my knowledge there has not been another accident in that location since. That means more than any verdict.
The following is Mr. Smithdeal's account of three civil appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   Schenk v. National Health Care, 322 S.C. 316, 471 S.E.2d 736, S.C. App., April 29, 1996;
(b)   Vaughn v. Salem Carriers and Virginia Surety Co., Court of Appeals decided November   30, 2005, unpublished;
(c)   Young v. S.C. Department of Corrections, 333 S.C. 714, 511 S.E.2d 413, S.C. App., February 01, 1999.
With respect to criminal appeals, Mr. Smithdeal has personally handled, he reported the following:

"I have only assisted with two criminal appeals, was not lead counsel on the appeals, and did not argue either of them."
Mr. Smithdeal further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In January 2009, I ran for the seat left vacant by the untimely death of Jim Johnson of the Eighth Circuit. I was one of three candidates nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Commission. Prior to the vote of the Legislature, I withdrew my name from consideration and Eugene 'Bubba' Griffith was elected."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Smithdeal's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Mr. Smithdeal is married to Elizabeth Clark Smithdeal. He has five children.
Mr. Smithdeal reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Association for Justice, Board of Governors 2001-09;
(c)   South Carolina Injured Workers' Advocates;
(d)   South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
(e)   American Association for Justice.
Mr. Smithdeal provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Greenwood Chamber of Commerce, General Counsel, 2006-present;
(b)   Citadel Alumni Association - Life Member;
(c)   HospiceCare of the Piedmont, Board of Directors, 1997-2005;
(d)   Boy Scout Troop 220 - Greenwood, S.C., Treasurer, 2005-present;
(e)   Greenwood Abbeville Little League, Vice President, 2007-08;
(f)   Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, Sunday school teacher;
(g)   Knights of Columbus Council 7129- fraternal/charitable organization;
(h)   Lakelands Baseball League and Greenwood Parks and Rec., baseball coach;
(i)   Long Cane Hunt Club;
(j)   Church softball team;
(k)   Healthy Learners, Advisory Board, 2006-present;
(l)   Fire Tower Hunt Club.
Mr. Smithdeal further reported:

"I take my children to school in the mornings and arrive at work every day at approximately 7:30 am. I take an hour for lunch and work until approximately 6:30 pm. I work until 5 pm on Fridays and several hours most Saturdays. My professional and personal reputation is my most valuable asset and I will always strive to uphold the integrity of our profession. I will keep the Court open at all times during scheduled business hours and will not look for an opportunity to leave early or cut a term short. Our dockets need attention and I will give it to them."
The Piedmont Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Smithdeal to be "Qualified" for seven of the nine evaluated criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. They found him "Well-Qualified" for two of the nine evaluative criteria: physical health and mental stability. The Committee interviewed Joseph C. Smithdeal at the Greenwood County Courthouse during the evening of September 9, 2009. They found Mr. Smithdeal "Qualified" for the office he is seeking. The decision of the Committee was unanimous.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that Mr. Smithdeal's stellar score on the Commission's Practice and Procedures test and his able intellect would assist him well on the Circuit Court bench. They also noted his good demeanor and substantial civil practice with some criminal experience, and his ability to listen to both sides.
(12)   Conclusion:
The Commission found Mr. Smithdeal qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Welmaker since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Welmaker meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Welmaker was born in 1945. He is 64 years old and a resident of Easley, South Carolina. Judge Welmaker provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Welmaker.
Judge Welmaker 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 Welmaker reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Welmaker testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Welmaker 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 Welmaker to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Welmaker described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name   Date
Spring Judicial Conference   May 6, 2009;
24th Annual Criminal Law Update   January 23, 2009;
7th Annual Civil Law Update   January 23, 2009;
2008 Annual Judicial Conference   August 20, 2008;
Spring Judicial Conference   May 14, 2008;
23rd Annual Criminal Law Update   January 25, 2008;
6th Annual Civil Law Update   January 25, 2008;
2007 Annual Judicial Conference   August 22, 2007;
Spring Judicial Conference   May 16, 2007;
22nd Annual Criminal Law Update   January 26, 2007;
5th Annual Civil Law Update   January 26, 2007;
2006 Annual Judicial Conference   August 23, 2006;
Spring Judicial Conference   May 5, 2006;
21st Annual Criminal Law Update   January 27, 2006;
4th Annual Civil Law Update   January 27, 2006;
2005 Annual Judicial Conference   August 24, 2005;
Spring Judicial Conference   May 11-13, 2005;
20th Annual Criminal Law Update   January 21, 2005;
3rd Annual Civil Law Update   January 21, 2005;
Seminar for Chief Judges   December 10, 2004;
2004 Annual Judicial Conference   August 19, 2004;
Judicial Oath of Office   August 19, 2004;
2004 Orientation School for Judges   July 12, 2004;
Breakfast Ethics Seminar   January 25, 2004;
Torts & Insurance Practices   January 24, 2004;
(z)   19th Annual Criminal Law Update   January 23, 2004.
Judge Welmaker reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Taught criminal law through Louisiana College, 1973-74;
Coordinated seminar for, and lectured to, active duty JAG officers at Shaw Air Force Base as to South Carolina estate law;
Participated in legal seminar for attorneys of the 13th Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office;
(d)   In September 2008, participated in the National Business Institute's Civil Court Judicial Forum, "What Civil Court Judges Want You to Know," a state-wide CLE.
Judge Welmaker reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Welmaker did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Welmaker did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Welmaker has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Welmaker 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 Welmaker reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV.
Judge reported the following military service:
United States Air Force - Lieutenant Colonel - XXX-XX-XXXX
Retired - Honorable Discharge
Active Duty: December, 1970 - September 1974;
Active Reserve: September, 1974 - June, 1996.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Welmaker was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

Upon graduation from the University of South Carolina School of Law and admission to the South Carolina Bar, I went into the United States Air Force in December, 1970, as a Judge Advocate General (JAG).

While on active duty, I performed numerous duties, including prosecution and defense of courts martial; conducting various administrative hearings, such as discharge boards, accident investigation, and medical disability; giving advice to base commander; participating in formal labor union negotiations; handing Federal Tort Claims Act suits; and, handling other various responsibilities.

I attended a number of legal schools for specific training. While on active duty in Louisiana, I taught criminal law and criminal procedure in the Louisiana College night school.

After separating from active duty with the Air Force in 1974, I remained in the active reserves, serving as a JAG officer at Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter, South Carolina, until retirement in 1996. Similar duties were performed there, and additional training given.

On September 16, 1974, Henry F. Floyd and I hung a shingle in Pickens, South Carolina, maintaining a general law practice in a small town. In 1978, the law firm merged with William G. Acker and Kenneth D. Acker to form Acker, Acker, Floyd & Welmaker. (Through additions and departures, the firm continued as Acker, Welmaker & Allison until my election to the bench.)

In the almost three decades of private practice in Pickens, the clientele remained varied. Generally the type of legal work I did can be divided into three segments of equal duration, although not without overlaps.

At first, most of my legal works involved criminal defense, family court, wills and estates, workers' compensation (for both claimants and employers), social security disability claims, plaintiff cases, and real estate closings.

During the second decade, my focus was more on civil trials-mostly defense work. In one of those years, I tried over two dozen cases before juries.

The final few years also involved governmental work, including representation of a municipality and the county. Often that representation would require prosecution of cases in the summary courts, and handling appeals to the South Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Throughout the years, there was representation of an electric cooperative, and JAG duties with the Air Force. No one could have been more blessed than I with good clients during the course of a very enjoyable career as a lawyer.
Judge Welmaker reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"I was elected Resident Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, on February 4, 2004. I have served continuously since my term began, March 1, 2004."
Judge Welmaker provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   State v. Laney was a death penalty case remanded by the South Carolina Supreme Court, 367 S.C. 639, 627 S.E.2d 726 (2006), and assigned to me. The primary issue in this case was the application of new standards set by the United States Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), in which that Court ruled the execution of a person with mental retardation is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I held numerous hearings, with various expert witnesses, to determine the Defendant's mental capacity. After qualification of the jury venire, a plea to life imprisonment was entered.
(b)   State v. Paige was a murder case affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, 375 S.C. 643, 654 S.E.2d 300 (2007). This trial brought into issue the balance between a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and a spectator's right to an open and public court. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed my decision as trial judge, whereby I allowed non-testifying family members to wear photo buttons of the deceased victim, under specific guidelines designed to prevent undue prejudice to the jury.
(c)   State v. Caldwell, 378 S.C. 268, 662 S.E.2d 474, (2008), a peeping tom case, involved three young victims. A prosecution witness's testimony caused my declaration of a mistrial. The subsequent retrial, of which I was again trial judge, resulted in convictions by a jury. The case presented several procedural and evidentiary issues. The South Carolina Court of Appeals agreed that the charges did not require severance, upheld the identification testimony, and affirmed my interpretation as trial judge of the statute in question, S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-17-470(A) (2003).
(d)   State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 675 S.E.2d 764, (2009), involved a lengthy double-murder trial. A primary issue in the case required adherence to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. One of the State's witnesses invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not testify, resulting in the Defendant's assertion that his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was denied. I determined this testimony to be collateral to the issues before the jury, overruling the Defendant's objection. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Defendant also asserted that the jury must be instructed that an adverse inference may be made from a witness's claim of silence under the Fifth Amendment. Again, the Court of Appeals found no error in my declining to so charge.
(e)   State v. Alley, 2007 UP 559 (2007). An unpublished opinion, this case is nevertheless significant because of the Court of Appeals' interpretation of an older South Carolina case [State v. Worthy, 239 S.C. 449, 123 S.E.2d 835 (1962)], in light of the more recent adoption of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The Court found Worthy still to be "good law" and upheld allowing an eyewitness to testify as to a conversation with the Defendant, even though there was a tape recording also made.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Welmaker's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Welmaker is married to Barbara Jean Edmonds Welmaker. He has two children.
Judge Welmaker reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional association:
South Carolina Bar
Judge Welmaker provided that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Welmaker to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. They also mentioned that "all comments regarding Judge Welmaker were extremely complementary regarding all aspects of the evaluative criteria."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission noted Judge Welmaker's exemplary service on the Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct, as well as his five years of service as a Circuit Court judge.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Welmaker qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Hill since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hill meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Hill was born in 1964. He is 45 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Hill 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 and Washington D.C. since 1990.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hill.
Judge Hill 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 Hill reported that he has made less than $20.00 in campaign expenditures for postage incurred for returning the application and forms.
Judge Hill testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Hill 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 Hill to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hill described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name     Date
(a)   19th Annual Criminal Law Update   1/23/2004;
(b)   Circuit Judge's Conference   5/2004;
(c)   2004 Orientation School for New Judges   7/12/2004;
(d)   Judicial Conference   8/19/2004;
(e)   Judicial Oath of Office   8/19/2004;
(f)   2004 Annual S.C. Solicitors' Conference   9/26/2004;
(g)   20th Annual Criminal Law Update   1/25/2005;
(h)   Circuit Judge's Conference   5/2005;
(i)   Judicial Conference   8/2005;
(j)   General Jurisdiction Course-Nat'l Jud. College   11/2005;
(k)   Fourth Annual Civil Law Update   1/27/2006;
(l)   21st Annual Criminal Law Update   1/27/2006;
(m)   Circuit Judges' Conference   5/2006;
(n)   2006 Annual Judicial Conference   8/23/2006;
(o)   Annual Convention     9/13/2006;
(p)   Judges Conference     5/16/2007;
(q)   2007 Annual Judicial Conference   8/22/2007;
(r)   Annual Meeting     11/01/2007;
(s)   Annual Civil Law Update   1/25/2008;
(t)   Circuit Judges' Conference   5/2008;
(u)   2008 Judicial Conference   8/20/2008;
(v)   S.C. Bar Ethics CLE   10/30/2008;
(w)   SCDTAA Annual Meeting   11/13/2008;
(x)   Annual Civil Law Update   1/23/2009;
(y)   Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update   1/23/2009;
(z)   Circuit Judges' Conference   5/2009.
Judge Hill reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   I have made presentations on the Confrontation Clause, Batson v. Kentucky, and judicial ethics to lawyers attending S.C. Bar CLEs, SCAJ meetings and the SCDTAA Trial Academy. I have also participated on panel discussions and given case law updates at the S.C. Solicitors' Conference.
(b)   I also teach a January Interim course at Wofford College entitled "The Bill of Rights and Modern Citizenship." This course involves intensive study of the origins and development of the Bill of Rights, and also provides the students the opportunity to be exposed to volunteer community service as they in turn teach what they have learned to students of a local literacy association who are preparing for the civics portion of the GED exam or the Naturalized Citizenship exam.
Judge Hill reported that he has published the following:
(a)   "Celebrate That We're a Nation of Laws, Not Men," May 2, 2008 OpEd column in The Greenville News;
(b)   "Lay Witness Opinions," Sept. 2007 South Carolina Lawyer at 34;
(c)   "Rule 30(j), Charlie McCarthy and The Potted Plant," September 2005 South Carolina Lawyer at 26;
(d)   Doing the Public's Business, (2001) (with Leo H. Hill).
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Hill did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hill did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hill has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Hill 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 Hill reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Hill was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1990.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"From 1989-90, I was a law clerk to Judge Billy Wilkins on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In 1990, I joined the law firm of Hill, Wyatt & Bannister. I became a partner in the firm in 1994. I had a general practice that included civil and criminal cases and appeals in all courts. In 2000, I started the law firm of Hill & Hill, LLC with my father, Leo H. Hill. We enjoyed a wide client base and practice area, concentrating in business litigation and representation of governmental bodies including municipalities and special purpose districts. We were fortunate to be listed in the Martindale-Hubbell Register of Pre-Eminent Lawyers."
Judge Hill reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"S.C. Circuit Court, 2004-present."
Judge Hill provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   Cornelius v. Oconee County, S.C. Supreme Court Op. No. 2186 (2006).

I was invited to sit as an acting Associate Justice of the S.C. Supreme court, and wrote this opinion for the unanimous court concerning whether a 1976 voter referendum and the S.C. Constitution precluded Oconee County from expanding its sewerage system using certain financing sources.
(b)   Hackworth v. Greenville County, S.C. Ct. App. Op. No. 4174 (2006)

This was a claim by the Hackworths against the Greenville County Sheriff's office for return of monies forfeited under the gambling laws. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the claim based on the Statute of Limitations.
(c)   State v. Dwight F. Jones, S.C. Ct. App. Op. No. 2006-UP-343 (2006).

This murder case was the first case I tried as a judge. Mr. Jones' conviction was upheld on appeal.
(d)   Torrence v. SCDC, S.C. Supreme Court Op. No. 26328 (2007)

This case involved a declaratory judgment action concerning the Prison Industries program. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the action.
(e)   Enersys, Inc. v. Jackson Lewis LLP, et al., C.A. No. 2004-CP-23-2685

This order involved significant issues concerning the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Hill's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Hill is married to Amanda P. Touissaint. He has three children.
Judge Hill reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar-President, Government Law Section, 1998-99; Member, House of Delegates, 1997-2004;
(b)   D.C. Bar (inactive);
(c)   Greenville County Bar Association-Executive Committee, 2001.
Judge Hill provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
Greenville Country Club.
The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Hill to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The committee further noted: "Our investigation revealed that Judge Hill is an outstanding jurist and is very well qualified in all aspects of the evaluative criteria."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented on the exceptional comments made by the Upstate Citizens Committee regarding Judge Hill and they noted his dedicated service on the bench for the past five years.
(12)   Conclusion:
The Commission found Judge Hill qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge John meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge John was born in 1953. He is 56 years old and a resident of Little River, South Carolina. Judge John 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 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge John.
Judge John 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 John reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge John testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge John 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 John to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge John described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name   Date
(a)   Circuit Judges Conference   5/6-8/09;
(b)   2008 SCLA Annual Convention   08/07/08;
(c)   2008 Judicial Conference   08/20-22/08;
(d)   7thAnnual Civil Law Update   01/23/09;
(e)   24th Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update   01/23/09;
(f)   Circuit Judges Conference   05/16/07;
(g)   2007 Annual Judicial Conference   08/22/07;
(h)   2007 Annual Conference   09/23/07;
(i)   23rd Annual S.C. Criminal Law Update   01/25/08;
(j)   6th Annual Civil Law Update   01/25/08;
(k)   National Judicial College-Handling Capital Cases   11/4-8/07;
(l)   Fourth Annual Civil Law Update   01/27/06;
(m)   21st Criminal Law Update   01/27/06;
(n)   Judicial Writing-National Judicial College   03/27-31/06;
(o)   20th Circuit Court Judges   05/8-10/06;
(p)   2006 Annual Judicial Conference   08/23-24/06;
(q)   2006 S.C. Annual S.C. Solicitors'   09/24-27/06;
(r)   22nd Annual Criminal Saw Update   01/26/07;
(s)   5th Annual Civil Law Update   01/26/07;
(t)   20th Annual Criminal Law Update   01/21/05;
(u)   3rd Annual Civil Law Update-Part II   01/21/05;
(v)   2005 Circuit Court Judges   05/11/05;
(w)   2005 Circuit Court Judges   05/12/05;
(x)   2005 Circuit Judges   05/13/05;
(y)   2005 Annual Judicial Conference   08/24-25/05;
(z)   Annual Meeting-SCDTTA   11/03-6/05;
(aa)   S.C. Solicitors' Assoc. Conference   09/25-28/05;
(bb)   19th Annual Criminal Law Update   01/23/04;
(cc)   2nd Annual Civil Law Update   01/23/04;
(dd)   2004 S.C. Circuit Judges   05/5-7/04;
(ee)   Judicial Conference   08/19/04;
(ff)   Judicial Oath of Office   08/19/04;
(gg)   2004 Annual S.C. Solicitors' Conference   09/26/04;
(hh)   National Judicial College Advanced Evidence     11/15-8/04.
Judge John reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge John reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge John did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge John did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge John has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge John 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 John reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge John was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   LAW CLERK TO THE HONORABLE SIDNEY T. FLOYD, RESIDENT JUDGE, FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 1978 - 1980;
(b)   PRIVATE TRIAL PRACTICE, 1981 - May 2001. Opened solo practice in N. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in 1986, having an active trial practice in all of the State Courts. In Civil Court, cases ranging from contracts to automobile accidents to multi-million dollar construction cases; Criminal Court, cases ranging from traffic offenses to court appointed defense in death penalty cases; Family Court, cases from uncontested divorces to all manner of contested family disputes;
(c)   COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL REFEREE in the Circuit Court, appointed by Judges Sidney T. Floyd and David H. Maring, Sr., in over fifty (50) cases;
(d)   CERTIFIED CIRCUIT COURT ARBITRATOR, by South Carolina Supreme Court Board of Arbitration;
(e)   COURT APPOINTED MEDIATOR in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, appointed by Judges Sidney T. Floyd and David H. Maring, Sr., in over fifty (50) cases;
(f)   COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM in disputed child custody cases in the Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in over One Hundred (100) cases;
(g)   CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH ZONING BOARD, 1993 - May, 2001;
(h)   PRO BONO LAWYER FOR HORRY COUNTY DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS AGENCY, 1993 - May, 2001.
Judge John reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"I was elected as the Resident Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, on May 30, 2001. This is a court of general jurisdiction for civil and criminal court."
Judge John provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   State v. Corey Sparkman, Op. No. 25816, S.C. Supreme Court;
(b)   B&A Development Inc., et al. v. Georgetown County, et al., Op. No. 3877, S.C. Court of Appeals;
(c)   Patricia Grand Hotel, LLC v. MacGuire Enterprises, Inc., Op. No. 4226, S.C. Court of Appeals;
(d)   State of South Carolina v. Stanley Dantonio, Jr., Op. No. 4333, S.C. Court of Appeals;
(e)   Terry Cartrette Tindal v. H&S Homes, LLC, Unpublished Op. No. 2005-UP-535, S.C. Court of Appeals
Judge John further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"In 1998 I filed as a candidate for Seat #2 of the Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. I was qualified as one of the three candidates by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission for this seat. At Large Judge Paula Thomas was the eventual successful candidate. In the fall of 1998, I filed as a candidate for At Large Seat #1 of the Circuit Court of the State of South Carolina. I withdrew as a candidate for this seat which the Honorable John Milling won by acclamation. In 1999, I filed as a candidate for At Large Seat #8 of the Circuit Court of South Carolina. I was rated as qualified but not selected for this seat which the Honorable Kenneth G. Goode won by acclamation."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge John's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge John is married to Susan Watts John. He has one child.
Judge John reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association - 1978 to present
(b)   Horry County Bar Association - 1978 - 2001- active

Horry County Bar Association - 2001- present - Honorary
Judge John provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Rotary International - 1987 - present; Rotary Club of North Myrtle Beach, 1987 - 2002; Rotary Club of Conway, 2003 - present. I have been a member of the Rotary Club of North Myrtle Beach Board of Directors and held numerous committee chairmanships. I am also a Paul Harris Fellow and a Sustaining Member and have received the perfect attendance award each year since joining in 1987.
(b)   Optimist International and local North Myrtle Beach Club 1987 - 1996. I was a member of the Board of Directors and held various officer positions.
(c)   Citadel Brigadier Club
(d)   Horry County Citadel Club
(e)   University of South Carolina Gamecock Club.
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge John to be "Well Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge John is known as a very thorough judge and strives to give litigants their opportunity to express their case.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge John qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Hayes since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hayes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court Judge.
Judge Hayes was born in 1945. He is 64 years old and is a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Judge Hayes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hayes.
Judge Hayes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Hayes reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Hayes testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Hayes testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Hayes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hayes described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name   Date
(a)   S.C. Bar Annual Criminal Law Update   2004-2009;
(b)   S.C. Bar Annual Civil Law Update   2004-2009;
(c)   Annual Judicial Conference   2003-2008;
(d)   Circuit Court Judges Association Annual Meeting   2004-2009.
Judge Hayes reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Solicitors' Association - participated on panels and seminars;
(b)   S.C. Defense Trial Lawyers Association - conducted presentations;
(c)   S.C. Bar's CLE Division - programs;
(d)   New Judge's Orientation - conducted presentations;
(e)   Chief Judge's School - conducted presentations;
(f)   High School and Middle School Mock Trials (including nationals in Charlotte, N.C.);
(g)   Defense Trial Lawyer's Trial Academy.
Judge Hayes reported that he has published the following:
(a)   Mail Fraud, 22 SCLR 434 (1970);
(b)   Torts - IntraFamily Immunity, 21 SCLR 813 (1969).
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Hayes did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hayes did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hayes has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Hayes was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Hayes reported his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV.
Judge Hayes reported the following military service:

"U.S. Army Reserve-E-6 Serial No. XXX-XX-XXXX; 1968-1974; Honorably Discharged; NCO of the Year (1973)"
Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following public office:
(a)   Solicitor, City of Rock Hill - appointed (approx. 1 year);
(b)   South Carolina House of Representative, 1980-84 - Elected;
(c)   South Carolina Senate, 1984-91 - Elected;
(d)   South Carolina Coastal Council (Fifth Congressional District) 1980 Elected.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Hayes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Hayes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Hayes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   1971-72, Law Clerk of Chief Justice Joseph R. Moss;
(b)   1972-1991   Hayes, Brunson and Gatlin, General Practice - 1972-91

My practice was primarily civil litigation. I also, throughout my practice, handled worker's compensation cases, social security disability cases, simple wills, and some estates. I have also handled real estate transactions including title searches and loan closings.
Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"South Carolina Circuit Court-1991-present-Elected."
Judge Hayes provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   Burbach v. Investors Management Corp., 326 S.C. 492, 484 S.E.2d   119;
(b)   Glaze v. Grooms, 324 W.E. 249, 378 S.E.2d 841;
(c)   Keith L. Simpson v. State, 97-CP-42-1911 (Unreported);
(d)   State v. Thurmon O'Neil Smith, 2002-GS-46-2525 and 2526.
Judge Hayes further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"Court of Appeals 2003 and 2007."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Hayes's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Hayes is married to Sarah Lynn Dorsey Hayes. He has six children.
Judge Hayes reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional association:
South Carolina Bar
Judge Hayes provided that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
The Piedmont Citizens Committee found Judge Hayes "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.

(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented on Judge Hayes' balanced judicial temperament, dignity, and great intellect, which has served him well as a Circuit Court jurist for 18 years.
(12)   Conclusion:
The Commission found Judge Hayes qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Alford since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Alford meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Alford was born in 1942. He is 67 years old and a resident of York, South Carolina. Judge Alford provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Alford.
Judge Alford 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 Alford reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Alford testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Alford 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 Alford to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Alford described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name     Date
S.C. Bar Civil Law Update   2004;
S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update   2004;
Circuit Judges' Conference   2004;
S.C. Judicial Conference   2004;
Supreme Court - Judicial Oath   2004;
S.C. Bar How to Manage Work   2004;
S.C. Bar Civil Law Update   2005;
S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update   2005;
S.C. Judicial Conference   2005;
S.C. Circuit Judges' Assn.   2005;
S.C. Bar Civil Law Update   2006;
S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update   2006;
S.C. Judicial Conference   2006;
S.C. Circuit Judges' Assn   2006;
National Judicial College - S.C.   2006;
Judges-Journalist Workshop   2006;
S.C. Bar Civil Law Update   2007;
S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update   2007;
S.C. Judicial Conference   2007;
S.C. Circuit Judges' Conf.   2007;
National Judicial College - Advanced Evid.   2008;
S.C. Bar Civil Law Update   2008;
S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update   2008;
S.C. Judicial Conference   2008;
(y)   S.C. Circuit Judges' Assn.   2008.
Judge Alford reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
I have served as a speaker for several Judicial CLE's for S.C. Probate Judges and a three-day training session for new Probate Judges. Topics have included: Conducting a Jury Trial, Probate Court Jurisdiction, Trusts and Annual Update of Supreme Court Decision Affecting Probate Courts.
(b)   I spoke to the S.C. Banker's Association about the new S.C. probate Code.
(c)   I served as a speaker at several S.C. Bar CLE Seminars on the S.C. Probate Code. I also spoke at a S.C. Bar CLE Seminar on the S.C. Probate Practice Manual on the subject of legislative changes to claims procedures in probate estate in light of Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope, 108 S. Ct. 1340.
(d)   I also served as a moderator for a CLE seminar at Winthrop University for the S.C. Bar and C.P.A.'s on the S.C. Probate Code.
(e)   I spoke at a training session for Chief Administrative Family Court Judges sponsored by S.C. Court Administration in January 1997 and received two (2) hours of CLE teaching credits.
(f)   I spoke at the 42nd Annual Conference of the Blue Ridge Institute for Juvenile and Family Court Judges in August, 1996 on the work of the Bench-Bar Committee as a part of families and kids project founded by the Kellogg Foundation and the 1996 Children's' Code Reform Act which grew out of the work of the committee. This annual conference is sponsored by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
(g)   I spoke at the 43rd Annual Conference of the Blue Ridge Institute for Juvenile and Family Court Judges in August, 1997 on our efforts to combat truancy and gave an evaluation of the implementation of the 1996 reforms to the Children's' Code.
(h)   I have served as a speaker on two occasions at the annual Solicitor's Conference and Continuing Legal Education seminars.
Judge Alford reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Alford did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Alford did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Alford has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Alford 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 Alford reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV.
Judge Alford reported the following military service:
U.S.A.F. 1960-64 A/2c, Honorable Discharge.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Alford was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I was associated with an experienced attorney in the general practice of law from 1971-77. I opened my own law office for the general practice of law in 1977. I served as Probate Judge for York County from 1979-92. I served as Family Court Judge from 1992-98. I have served as Circuit Judge from 1998 to present. In the practice of law, I participated in criminal, civil, domestic relations, probate and property cases. My caseload was evenly divided in these areas of law."
Judge Alford reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
(a)   Probate Judge for York County 1979-92. Elected by the voters of York County for four (4) year term in 1978. Re-elected in 1982, 1986, and 1990. Resigned in 1992 when elected to Family Court. Probate Courts of S.C. are Courts of Record with limited jurisdiction which includes exclusive original jurisdiction over wills, trusts, the estates of deceased persons and persons who are mentally ill or who have chronic alcohol or drug addiction etc.
(b)   Family Court Judge for the 16th Judicial Circuit Seat No. 2, 1992 to 1998. Elected by the General Assembly to complete three (3) years remaining on the six (6) year term of retired judge. Re-elected to a six (6) year term in 1995. Family Courts in South Carolina are Courts of Record created by statute with limited jurisdiction. Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in divorces, annulments, adoptions, juvenile crimes, child custody, visitation, support, as well as abuse and neglect cases, etc.
(c)   Circuit Court Judge for the 16th Judicial Circuit Seat #2 from 1998 to present. Elected by the General Assembly in 1998 and in 2004 for six (6) year terms. Circuit courts in South Carolina are Courts of Record with general jurisdiction. Circuit courts are the primary trial court in South Carolina. In General Sessions Court, circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases which exceed magistrate court jurisdiction up to and including capital cases. In Common Pleas Court, circuit courts have jurisdiction in all civil cases seeking more than $7,500.00. It also includes civil and criminal appeals from probate, magistrate, and municipal courts, zoning boards and post conviction relief appeals.
Judge Alford provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   Johnny McMillan, Jimmie Griner, and Hughsie Trowell, Respondents v. South Carolina Department of Agriculture, Petitioner. Opinion No. 26567, heard October 21, 2008 and filed November 24, 2008.

This case is included because I sat with the S.C. Supreme Court in its consideration and disposition. It was an interesting and informative experience to participate in the handling of a case at that level. I studied the record on appeal and briefs filed by both sides in advance of the hearing and participated fully in the disposition of the case.

The S.C. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a Court of Appeals decision which upheld an order of a special referee granting respondents a recovery from the Warehouse Receipts Guaranty Fund and awarding them attorney fees.

In a per curiam opinion the Court reversed decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the special referee's order awarding respondents a recovery from the Fund.
(b)   Rock Hill School district Number Three, a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina, a federally reorganized Indian tribe, and all predecessors and successors in interest, including the Catawba Indian Nation of South Carolina, Inc., Defendant, The State of South Carolina, Intervener, C.A. No. 99-CP-46-1041.

I ruled in favor of the Rock Hill School district in an opinion dated March 17, 2003 which received national media coverage. The S.C. Supreme Court affirmed my decision in full on appeal.
(c)   Lloyd Behr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spring Industries, Inc., et. al, C.A . No.2001-CP-46-375; also, Rolling Investor Group, Inc. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crandall Close Bowles, et. al. , Defendants, C.A. No. 2001-CP-46-398; also, Viviana Cortes, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John F. Akers, et. al, Defendants, C.A. No. 2001-CP-46-319.

In this class action lawsuit, a settlement was approved by my order dated December 18, 2002, which ended all of the above actions. That order was not appealed.
(d)   State v. Wesley Aaron Shafer, 1997-GS-44-419.

This was a capital case in which Wesley Aaron Shafer was convicted of murder and an aggravated factor of robbery and sentenced to death. The case was remanded back to the State by the U.S. Supreme Court to make a factual finding whether actions by the Solicitor required that the jury be informed a life sentence meant that Shafer would never be eligible for parole.

The S.C. Supreme Court reversed the trial court as to the sentencing phase and remanded the case for a new sentencing phase trial. The General Assembly passed a statute requiring that juries be informed that life without parole meant that a defendant would never be eligible for parole.

I was appointed to preside over a new sentencing phase trial. The jury recommended a life sentence and he was sentenced to life without parole.
(e)   The State-Record Co., Inc. and The Greenville News, Interveners, in RE: SCDSS v. Susan Smith, et al. 88-DR-44-11.

In this case the news media moved to have the sealed file in the above case opened. The Order discusses the development of the law as to the openness in the Courts. The Order was not appealed. There was extraordinary media coverage.
Judge Alford further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
(a)   I ran for York County Council in 1976. A long time member of the council in my district said he was not running for re-election. After I filed to run, he changed his mind and filed. I did not actively campaign and lost in a close election. The incumbent was a friend of mine.
(b)   I ran for one of the nine (9) new Circuit Court positions created in 1990. Five candidates filed and were qualified. Three candidates dropped out. I lost in a fairly close election to Henry McKellar.
(c)   I ran for one of the three (3) new Circuit Court Seats in 1995. I ran second out of eleven candidates who filed.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Alford's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Alford is married to Terri Dean Baker Alford. He has two children.
Judge Alford reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   York County Bar Association
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association
(c)   South Carolina Circuit Court Judges Association.
Judge Alford provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
American Legion Post #34.
Judge Alford further reported:

Prior to the last 5 years, I held office in the following civic organizations:
(a)   Past President of the S.C. United Way;
(b)   Past President of the Western York County United Way;
(c)   Community Action Vice President of the S.C. Jaycees;
(d)   Past President of the York Jaycees;
(e)   Past President of the Greater York Chamber of Commerce;
(f)   Past President of the York Red Cross Chapter;
(g)   Past Chairman of the York County Boy Scout Council;
(h)   Executive Board of the Palmetto Council of Boy Scouts;
(i)   Past President of the York Rotary Club;
(j)   Past President of the York County Mental Health Association;
(k)   Past President of the Camp Arc Council which established   Special

Olympics and residential camps for the mentally handicapped;
(l)   Past Judge Advocate for American Legion Post #34 Mason;
(m)   Trustee and Director of the York County Crescent Shrine Club;
(n)   Dixie Youth Baseball Council and Coach;
(o)   York County Soccer League Coach.

Active member of the Trinity United Methodist Church where I taught Adult Sunday School Class for more than twenty-five (25) years; served on the Administrative Board, Board of Trustees and as President of the Men's Club, Lay Leader, Lay Speaker, Chairman of the Pastor Parish Relations Committee, Trustee, Lay Representative to the Annual Conference of the S.C. United Methodist Church. I coached youth basketball in the Rock Hill Church League for a number of years.

I received "Project of the Year" awards from the York Jaycees and was named "Key Man" and "Jaycee of the Year" by that organization. Named "Outstanding Local President" and "Outstanding State Vice President" of the S.C. Jaycees. Received the "York Jaycees' Distinguished Service Award" in 1976 and named one of the "Three Outstanding Young Men in S.C." in 1977. Received Rotary's highest award, "Paul Harris Fellow" from the York Rotary Club in 1989. Named "Shriner of the Year" by the York County Crescent Shrine Club in 1989. York County's nominee for the "Nine Who Care Award" in 1989.

As a Probate Judge, I served on the legislative study committee that drafted South Carolina's version of the Uniform Probate Code which was enacted into law by the General Assembly. I also served on the first Technical Corrections Committee for that Code.

As President of the S.C. Probate Judges' Assn., I requested that the Legislative-Governor's Committee on Mental Health and Mental Retardation appoint a task force to study the law concerning the involuntary commitment of persons with chronic addiction to alcohol and drugs. I served on that task force which met for one (1) year and drafted a proposed revision of those laws which were approved with changes by the committee and passed into law by the General Assembly.

I applied for and received a grant to study the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act and the Rights of the mentally retarded in court at the National Judicial College in September, 1994. It was timely because the Catawba Indian Tribe, located primarily in York County recently received federal recognition. Since Federal Act supersedes state law as to foster care and adoptions, it is important for Family Court Judges to have a working knowledge of the Act. I have offered to share this information with the S.C. Bar and the S.C. Family Court Judges in CLE seminars.

I actively served on the Bench-Bar Subcommittee of the S.C. Families for Kids Committee which received a $100,000.00 planning grant from the Kellogg Foundation to study and recommend changes to the foster care and adoption law and procedures in S.C. This hardworking group met primarily on Saturdays in Columbia and helped draft a grant application approved by the Kellogg Foundation for $3,000,000.00 over three years. Recommendations of that committee significantly improved emergency procedures, foster care and adoption services to children who have been abused or neglected. The 1996 Children's Code Reform Act was a product of that study.

I was designated by S.C. Court Administration to represent Family Court on a Court Improvement Program Grant Committee and attended a regional conference in Washington, D.C. on May 18 and 19, 1995. U.S. Congress allocated $35,000,000.00 over a four (4) year period. The grants were designed to encourage states to study the way courts handle foster care an adoption cases and implement a plan to improve case processing.

I assisted with the training for the juvenile arbitration program started by the Solicitor's Office with a grant from the Governor's Office.
I served as Chairman of the Governor's Juvenile Council for the 16th Judicial Circuit. I received an award from the Governor's Council for my work in leading the council.

At the request of the York County Alliance for Children and the school districts I developed forms and established court time to conduct hearings for parents of young children who had serious truancy problems.

I have presided over the York County Drug Court on a voluntary basis for a number of years at night. The program has been very successful.
I have a strong faith in our justice system. I have always tried to conduct myself in a way that would not cause anyone to lose faith in our justice system. I have tried to make jurors feel important and vital to our justice system. I have always expressed appreciation to them for their sacrifices in making our justice system work. I qualify the jury venire about 90% of the time.

I have always had a strong work ethic. I have not missed court because of illness or other reasons in fourteen (14) years and I have missed no more than ten (10) days in thirty (30) years on the bench.

I read every opinion issued by the S.C. Supreme Court and the S.C. Court of Appeals within a week after they are reported.

The years I practiced law and the thirty (30) years I have served as probate, family, and circuit judge have provided me with invaluable knowledge and appreciation for our justice system
The Piedmont Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Alford to be "Well-qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament.
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that Judge Alford has been an asset to the Circuit Court bench during his 11 year tenure as a resident judge for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit and also noted his active service in his local community.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Alford qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Bloom meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Bloom was born in 1956. He is 53 years old and a resident of Sandy Run, South Carolina. Mr. Bloom 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. He was also admitted to the North Carolina Bar in 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Bloom.
Mr. Bloom 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. Bloom reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Bloom testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Bloom 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. Bloom to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Bloom described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name     Date
(a)   Federal Practice Seminar (registered; pending)   10/29/09;
(b)   Federal Advocacy Training   10/6/08;
(c)   Federal Criminal Practice   10/16/08;
(d)   Federal Criminal Practice   11/1/07;
(e)   Victim Outreach Training   3/24-25/07; 4/14-15/07;
(f)   21st Annual Criminal Law Update   1/27/06;
(g)   4th Annual Civil Law Update   1/27/06;
(h)   Restorative Justice     5/8-5/12/06;
(i)   27th Annual Capital Punishment   7/21-7/23/06;
(j)   Habeas Institute     6/2/05;
(k)   Capital PCR Training   10/14-15/04;
(l)   Mental Health Concerns for Attys   12/10/04.
Mr. Bloom reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

Adjunct Professor, USC College of Criminal Justice, 1998-1999. Taught: Constitutional Law; and American Criminal Court System.
Mr. Bloom further reported that he has taught or lectured as follows:
(a)   "Arizona v. Gant (U.S. Sup. Ct. decision, April 21, 2009) and its Impact on Law Enforcement Automobile Searches," Presentation to the First Circuit Law Enforcement Assn., June 4, 2009.
(b)   "Updates in Psychiatry and the Law," Psychiatry and the Law Seminar for Graduate Fellows, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Wm. S. Hall Psychiatric Institute, Columbia, S.C., March 2009.
(c)   "Mitigation and Forensic Psychiatry" Psychiatry and the Law Seminar for Graduate Fellows, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Wm. S. Hall Psychiatric Institute, Columbia, S.C., March 2007; March 2008.
(d)   "A Case Study of Rompilla and the Role of Mitigation: Wiggins revisited," Psychiatry and the Law Seminar for Graduate Fellows, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Wm. S. Hall Psychiatric Institute, Columbia, S.C., March 2006.
(e)   "The Habeas Institute: Teaching the Art of Advocacy," National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, Georgia, June 2- 5, 2005.
(f)   "A Case Study of State v. Von Dohlen and the Role of Mitigation," Psychiatry and the Law Seminar for Graduate Fellows, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Wm. S. Hall Psychiatric Institute, Columbia, S.C., March 24, 2005.
(g)   "Changing the Theme of Your Capital Post-Conviction Case," N.C. Center for Death Penalty Litigation, Chapel Hill, N.C., October 2004.
(h)   "Wiggins and the Forensic Social Worker," Psychiatry and the Law Seminar for Graduate Fellows, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Wm. S. Hall Psychiatric Institute, Columbia, S.C., March 25, 2004.
(i)   "The Application of Ring to S.C. Law," S.C. Public Defender Assn. Conference, Charleston, S.C., October 1, 2003.
(j)   "Diagnosing Mental Retardation and its Impact," Psychiatry and the Law Seminar for Graduate Fellows, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Wm. S. Hall Psychiatric Institute, Columbia, S.C., February 2003.
(k)   "Voir Dire in Capital Jury Selection", and "Team-Building in Capital Cases," Virginia Death Penalty College, Richmond, VA., January 31, 2003.
(l)   "Psychiatric Issues and Jury Selection in Capital Cases," Psychiatry and the Law Seminar for Graduate Fellows, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Wm. S. Hall Psychiatric Institute, Columbia, S.C., March 28, 2002.
(m)   "Psychiatric Issues & Mitigation in Capital Cases," Psychiatry and the Law Seminar for Graduate Fellows, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Wm. S. Hall Psychiatric Institute, Columbia, S.C., January 31, 2001.
(n)   "Understanding Juries in Capital Cases," S.C. Public Defender Assn., Myrtle Beach, S.C., October 2000.
(o)   "Use of Mock Trials/Focus Groups in Preparing Capital Cases," N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers, Raleigh, N.C., September 2000.
(p)   "Jury Selection in Capital Cases," Georgia Indigent Defense Council Seminar, Atlanta, Georgia, July 2000.
(q)   "Use of Mock Trials/Focus Groups in Preparing Capital Cases," NAACP Legal Defense Fund Capital Litigation Seminar, Virginia, August 1999.
(r)   "Prosecutorial Conduct and Witnesses", Lecture delivered to the S.C. Judicial Conference, August 22, 1997.
(s)   "Caseloads, Ethics, and Remedies" S.C. Public Defender Assn. Seminar, Sept. 30, 1996.
(t)   "Obtaining Adequate and Effective Resources in Capital Cases," S.C. Assn. of Criminal Defense Attorneys, February 1996.
(u)   "Court Appointments in Conflict Cases," S.C. Bar Continuing Legal Education Seminar, University of South Carolina, School of Law, December 15, 1995.
(v)   "Psychiatry and The Law" University of South Carolina, School of Medicine Seminar, December 16, 1994.
(w)   "The Ethics of Dealing With Difficult Clients & Difficult Issues: Confronting Race & Gender," S. C. Public Defender Association Conference, September 30, 1994.
(x)   "Family Court Criminal Law Seminar: Search and Seizure and Schmerber," Dept. of Juvenile Justice, August 19, 1994.
(y)   "Constitutional Law," Magistrate Training Seminar, S.C. Criminal Justice Academy, July 28, 1994.
(z)   "Mock Trial Demonstration: Insanity Issues," University of South Carolina, School of Medicine, May 25, 1994.
(aa)   "Criminal Practice in South Carolina: The Fifth & Sixth Amendments," S.C. Bar Continuing Legal Education Seminar, University of South Carolina, School of Law, November 12, 1993.
(bb)   "Panel Discussion on Indigent Defense: Practical and Ethical Problems and Solutions," S.C. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, October 8, 1993.
(cc)   "Opening Statements, Final Arguments, and Jury Dynamics - Including Batson and Edmonson Issues (Panel Discussion of Jury Selection and Dynamics)," S.C. Bar Continuing Legal Education Seminar, University of South Carolina, School of Law, April 2, 1993.
(dd)   "Death Penalty Litigation: Getting Funds and Experts," S.C. Public Defender Association Conference, October 1993.
(ee)   "Ethics in Criminal Defense: What To Do, What Not To Do, And Changing Rules," S.C. Bar Continuing Legal Education Seminar, University of South Carolina, School of Law, September 3, 1992.
(ff)   "Ethics: Conflicts of Interest in Criminal Law," S.C. Bar Continuing Legal Education Seminar, University of South Carolina, School of Law, 1991.
(gg)   "Criminal Defense and Investigation," S.C. Association of Legal Investigators, May 11, 1990.
Mr. Bloom reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Bloom did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Bloom did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Bloom has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Bloom 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. Bloom reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Mr. Bloom reported that he has held the following public offices:
All offices below were appointed. Reports were timely filed with State Ethics Comm., and I was never subject to penalty.
(a)   Commission Member, S.C. Comm. on Indigent Defense: 2006-07.
(b)   Chair, Appellate Defense Comm.: 1990-98.
(c)   Commission Member, S.C. Sentencing Guidelines Comm.: 1990-96.
(d)   Zoning Board of Appeals, City of North Myrtle Beach, S.C.: 1989-92.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Bloom was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   1984 - Brunswick County, N.C.; Juvenile Court;
(b)   1985 - Neighborhood Legal Aid Assn., Conway, S.C.: Civil and Family   Court;
(c)   1985-92 - Horry County Public Defender Office, Conway, S.C.;
(d)   Began as an Assistant Public Defender. Served as Chief Public   Defender 1988-92;
(e)   1992-99 - Richland County Public Defender Office, Columbia, S.C.   Served as Chief Public Defender;
(f)   1999-Present. Private Practice. I have handled capital trial, appellate, and post-conviction cases. In February 2006, I began accepting appointments and assisting the Calhoun County Public Defender Office, St. Matthews, S.C. I have also handled pro bono cases in civil court, including bankruptcy, landlord-tenant, magistrate court, workers compensation, and similar cases. I continue to donate more than 100 hours pro bono services annually.
Mr. Bloom further reported:

"I have handled complex criminal cases for more than 20 years (representing defendants) as a Public Defender in two counties, Horry and Richland. I have also, since 2006, begun handling criminal appointments and pro bono criminal cases in Calhoun County (please contact, for any references in this regard, Calhoun County Public Defender Martin Banks: P.O. Box 243, St. Matthews, S.C., 29135; # 803-874-2100). This includes the trial level, appellate, and post-conviction stages. Beginning about 2004, I began handling federal criminal cases, too. Cases handled in the last 5 years include numerous complex capital cases and numerous criminal cases, such as: State v. (Rita) Bixby, 373 S.C. 74, 644 S.E.2d 54 (2007). This case set the precedent in that a defendant charged as an accessory before the fact to murder cannot be subject to capital punishment as a principal. Other issues in such cases have involved constitutional questions such as due process, search and seizure, effective assistance of counsel, and related issues. Similar case examples can be listed if necessary.

In civil cases, I have handled numerous capital post-conviction cases, which operate under the rules of civil procedure and are treated as such by the court. Case examples include: Charping v. Ozmint, Mem. Op. 2006-MO-024 (S.C. July 3, 2006) and Von Dohlen v. State, 360 S.C. 598, 602 S.E.2d 738 (2004). I have also handled pro bono cases in civil court representing mainly defendants, including bankruptcy, landlord-tenant, magistrate court, workers compensation, and similar cases. While I have not handled numerous civil litigation-type cases, my experience with the civil rules and procedures in the numerous aforementioned cases have exposed me to the arena of civil law."
Mr. Bloom reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   federal:   more than 35;
(b)   state:     more than 70.
Mr. Bloom reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   civil:       50% (including capital PCR cases which are treated as civil cases);
(b)   criminal:   50%;
(c)   domestic:   none.
Mr. Bloom reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   jury:     25%;
(b)   non-jury:   75%.
Mr. Bloom provided that he most often served as lead counsel.
The following is Mr. Bloom's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   State v. (Rita) Bixby, 373 S.C. 74, 644 S.E.2d 54 (2007). This case set the precedent in that a defendant charged as an accessory before the fact to murder cannot be subject to capital punishment as a principal.
(b)   Kelly v. Ozmint, 7th Cir. Court of Common Pleas and S.C. Sup.Ct.; 5/24/06, cert. den., affirming Circuit Court's grant of relief (no reported decision). This case established a number of significant constitutional claims, including the constitutional mandate that race cannot play any part of the prosecutorial decision to seek the death penalty.
(c)   Von Dohlen v. State, 360 S.C. 598, 602 S.E.2d 738 (2004). First S.C. Supreme Court case which adopted, interpreted and applied the U.S. Supreme Court recent precedent of Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003).
(d)   U.S. v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2008). I represented defendant at trial. While the appeal was unsuccessful for the defendant, it established important sentencing principles in federal court.
(e)   Blakeney v. Branker, 314 Fed. Appx. 572, 2009 U.S.App.LEXIS 4509 (4th Cir. 2009). Appeal in 4th Circuit Court of Appeals; petition for certiorari pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. This was a complicated capital post-conviction case in U.S. District Court in N.C. involving race issues in jury selection, ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and discovery issues.
The following is Mr. Bloom's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   Charping v. Ozmint, Mem. Op. 2006-MO-024 (S.C., July 3, 2006), affirming Circuit Court's grant of relief;
(b)   Kelly v. Ozmint, 7th Cir. Court of Common Pleas and S.C. Sup.Ct.; 5/24/06, cert. den. On appeal by the State, affirming Circuit Court's grant of relief;
(c)   Von Dohlen v. State, 360 S.C. 598, 602 S.E.2d 738 (2004);
(d)   Lawrence v. State, 1st Circuit Court of Common Pleas and S.C. Sup. Ct.; 8/08, cert. den., affirming Circuit Court's grant of relief. (handled appeal pro bono);
(e)   Credell v. State, appeal dismissed. (appeal handled pro bono).
The following is Mr. Bloom's account of the criminal appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   State v. (Rita) Bixby, 373 S.C. 74, 644 S.E.2d 54 (2007);
(b)   State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412, 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005). Established the parameters for Circuit Court in accepting a guilty plea in a capital case. (I was appointed by the S.C. Supreme Court and served pro bono in this appeal);
(c)   State v. Cockerham, 294 S.C. 380, 365 S.E.2d 22 (19988). Established 5th Amendment protections for the defendant as applied to the prosecutor's closing argument. (brief no longer available due to age of case; may be requested from S.C. Supreme Court library if necessary).
Mr. Bloom further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
Candidate for First Circuit Court Seat # 1 August 2008 - February 2009.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Bloom's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Mr. Bloom is not married. He has two children.
Mr. Bloom reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar;
(b)   N.C. Bar;
(c)   S.C. Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
(d)   Calhoun County Bar;
(e)   Richland County Bar;
(f)   American Society of Trial Consultants;
(g)   Formerly a member of the S.C. Public Defender Assn. and served as President from 1990-96.
Mr. Bloom provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Scoutmaster, Boy Scouts of America, Troop 397, Asbury Methodist Church, 2005-Present;
(b)   Asst. Clinical Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science, USC School of Medicine, 1999-Present. (serve pro bono);
(c)   Former Board Member, Domestic Abuse Center.
Mr. Bloom further reported:
(a)   I am an Eagle Scout and registered member of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for over 20 years. I am a member of the honored society in BSA of the Order of the Arrow, as a Vigil Honor member. I have been through adult "Woodbadge" training which centers on group and leader dynamics. Boy Scouts is a very big part of my life, and the Boy Scout Oath and Law guide my life.
(b)   Awarded Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the S.C. Bar (1/26/06) for 2005. I donate more than 100 pro bono hours annually.
(c)   Moot Court judge at the USC-School of Law for numerous years.
(d)   Victim Outreach training, along with Restorative Justice training, as noted above, has sensitized me to the needs of victims and victims' families.
(e)   Served as a Special Master in civil case of Hall v. Murphree (Case No. 08-CP-09-101).
The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Bloom to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary that, "Mr. Bloom is a very eminently qualified and a highly regarded candidate. We are confident he would most ably serve on the Circuit Court in an outstanding manner."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that they were very impressed with Mr. Bloom's test score on the Commission's practice and procedure test. They noted that he was well-spoken at the public hearing and has extensive court room experience, which would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Bloom qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Brown meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Brown was born in 1969. He is 40 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. 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 1998.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Brown.
Mr. 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.
Mr. Brown reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Brown testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. 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 Mr. Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Brown described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name     Date
(a)   Mediation Certification Training and Advanced

Negotiating Workshop     08/2009;
(b)   U.S. Sentencing Guideline Seminar   07/2009;
(c)   CJA Mini Seminar     05/2009;
(d)   National Criminal Defense College   07/2008;
(e)   Criminal Justice Act Mini-Seminar   08/01/08;
(f)   17th Annual Criminal Practice   10/05/07;
(g)   Mandatory ADR Training   09/08/06;
(h)   2006 Public Defender Conf.   09/25/06;
(i)   20th Annual Criminal Law Update   01/21/05;
(j)   Federal Sentencing Guidelines   03/03/05;
(k)   Attorney EOF Training   03/08/05;
(l)   How to Successfully Resolve Automobile Accidents in S.C.   12/02/05;
(m)   Workers' Compensation in S.C.   12/07/05;
(n)   Examining and Resolving Title Issues in S.C.   12/14/05;
(o)   Federal Criminal Practice 2004   05/13/04;
(p)   Blakely v Washington Seminar   07/21/04;
(q)   Revised Lawyer's Oath   10/19/04;
(r)   Accident Litigation: Trying a Wreck   03/21/03;
(s)   2003 S.C. Tort Law Update   09/26/03.
Mr. Brown reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Francis Marion University - Adjunct Professor - Business Law.

August 1999 - May 2005.
(b)   Florence-Darlington Technical College - Adjunct Professor - Business

Law. March 7, 2000 - May 11, 2000.
Mr. Brown reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

Mr. Brown reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
Mr. Brown reported that he has held the following public office:
Florence County Voter Registration and Election Commission. Appointed March 2007 and resigned on February 5, 2008. While serving on this Commission, I did timely file my report with the State Ethics Commission.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Brown was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1998.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   Judicial Law Clerk, for the Honorable M. Duane Shuler, South Carolina Circuit Court; Aug. 1997 - Summer 1998;
(b)   Bridges, Orr, Derrick & Ervin - Aug. 1998 - April 2001

Engaged in the practice of civil litigation, primarily defense;
(c)   The Law Office of D. Craig Brown, P.C. - May 2001 - present. Engaged in the practice of civil litigation, (plaintiff and defense) and criminal defense, (state and federal);
(d)   Florence County Public Defender - (Part-time) - July 2006 - August 2007. Engaged in the practice of criminal defense in the South Carolina Court   of General Sessions;
(e)   Marion County Public Defender - (Part-time) - July 2006 - present. Engaged in the practice of criminal defense in the South Carolina Court of General Sessions.
Mr. Brown further reported:

Throughout my legal career, I have tried civil and criminal cases. My experience as a criminal trial attorney includes defending such minor offenses as "unlawful possession of a weapon" and more complex felony cases such as murder.

The most recent murder case I tried was in June of 2008. The case initially was ruled a suicide. Approximately four months later, the case was ruled a homicide based upon gunshot residue found on my client, his mother, and the decedent. The trial of the case involved numerous evidentiary and scientific issues related to gunshot residue, location of the wound, and statements given by my client prior to his arrest. After a week-long trial, the jury convicted my client of manslaughter, rather than murder, and he received a sentence of eight years.

My experience in civil matters goes back to the fall of 1998, when I began practicing law. The primary types of matters handled by me include personal injury cases (plaintiff and defense). The primary issues involved have been liability on behalf of the defendant, and damages on behalf of the plaintiff. One case I defended and tried in Marlboro County involved the legal issue of intoxication of the defendant and whether his intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident. The defense of the case required me to argue the facts and law related to defendant's intoxication. The trial resulted in a favorable finding for my client, the defendant.
Mr. Brown reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
(a)   federal:   Approximately 5-7 times a month;
(b)   state:     Approximately 5 times a month.
Mr. Brown reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
(a)   civil:     45%;
(b)   criminal:   50%;
(c)   domestic:   5%.
Mr. Brown reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows:
(a)   jury:     95%;
(b)   non-jury:   5%.
Mr. Brown provided that he most often served as sole counsel. He further stated, "However, I have served as chief counsel and associate counsel where more than one attorney was involved."
The following is Mr. Brown's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   United States v. Cherisme - This defendant was charged in federal district court with a drug conspiracy along with two other co-defendants. One of the co-defendants cooperated with the government while Cherisme and another co-defendant (his cousin) went to trial. This case was significant in that it involved many evidentiary issues such as the testimony of the cooperating co-defendant, the admissibility of a voluminous amount of phone records, and issues pertaining to Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404(b) (Character Evidence - Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts). Defendant Cherisme and the other co-defendant that went to trial were both convicted. The conviction is currently on appeal.
(b)   State v. Joshua Weatherford - This was a case that was initially ruled a suicide. Approximately four months after the decedent's death, the defendant was one of two individuals charged with murder, due to gunshot residue tests performed on the defendant and his co-defendant on the night of the decedent's death. The case was significant due to legal issues pertaining to gunshot residue which was presented by the state's expert during their trial and by the defense. The jury convicted the defendant after a week-long trial of voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, and he received a sentence of eight years.
(c)   State v. Brockington - The defendant was charged with attempted lewd act. The case went to trial. In defending the case, one important legal issue that was raised involved statements given by unavailable witnesses which were exculpatory. The statements were admitted and the case ended in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict. The case has never been called again for trial.
(d)   Keels v. Poston, Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-039. The defendant was sued for negligence. The case was tried and the Defendant was found   liable in the amount of $35,000.00. This case significant because the defendant was charged with failure to yield right-of-way. The plaintiff had medical bills totaling approximately $7,000.00 and only obtained a verdict of $35,000.00 in Williamsburg County, where verdicts are typically higher.
(e)   Ray v. Radford - The defendant, who was intoxicated at the time of the accident, was sued for negligence. The case was significance because of the issues relating to the defendant's intoxication and whether or not his intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident. At the conclusion of the trial, a defense verdict was returned, wherein the jury determined that the defendant's intoxication was not the proximate cause of the accident.
The following is Mr. Brown's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   Amerson v. Ervin, et. al., Appealed from the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas. Decision filed in S.C. Court of Appeals on January 18, 2006. Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-044.
(b)   Keels v. Poston, Appealed from the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas. Decision filed in S.C. Court of Appeals on January 14, 2005. Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-039.
The following is Mr. Brown's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   State v. James Rogers, S.C. Court of Appeals, March 13, 2006. 368 S.C. 529, 629 S.E.2d 679 (2006).
(b)   State v. Christopher Earl Lane - S.C. Court of Appeals, June 8, 2007. Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-302.
(c)   U.S. v. Barry Wayne Griggs, U.S. Court of Appeals. Unpublished Opinion July 30, 2007, 241 Fed. Appx. 155 (2007).
(d)   U.S. v. Rodney Barner, U.S. Court of Appeals. Unpublished Opinion, August 29, 2007, 238 Fed. Appx. 970 (2007).
(e)   U.S. v. Charles Jamal Huggins, U.S. Court of Appeals. Unpublished Opinion, April 20, 2006, 176 Fed. Appx. 420 (2006).
Mr. Brown further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I previously ran for Circuit Court, At Large, Seat No. 1. The screening process took place in the Fall of 2008. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission found that I was qualified and nominated me for election. The election for this particular seat took place in February 2009. I withdrew as a candidate on the morning of the election."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Brown's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Mr. Brown is married to Kay Hunt Brown. He has three children.
Mr. Brown reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Florence County Bar Association.
Mr. Brown provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Pee Dee Area Citadel Club - President 2005;
(b)   Florence YMCA - Lend-A-Hand Contributor;
(c)   Florence County T-Ball Baseball Coach - 2008;
(d)   Florence County Small Fry Baseball Coach - 2009;
(e)   Upward Soccer Coach.
Mr. Brown further reported:

"I have had many life experiences that I believe would reflect positively upon my candidacy and should be considered by the Commission for the position that I seek. I have always been taught the value of honesty, integrity, hard work and respect for others. These values were instilled within me at a very young age by my parents. They have been applied in all of my endeavors which include the following: cutting and packaging gladiolas on a gladiola farm; working as an attendant at a service station pumping gas, changing tires and servicing automobiles; working third shift at Tupperware Manufacturing Plant on the production line; and working as a Probation Agent with the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. I believe that these work experiences, along with my experience practicing law, have equipped me and better prepared me to relate to many different people and understand their circumstances."
The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Brown to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. They also found that "Mr. Brown would make an excellent judge."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Brown's great intellect was demonstrated by his outstanding performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure Test. The Commission also noted his diverse civil and criminal experience, which would be an asset in serving as a Circuit Court judge.
(12)   Conclusion:
The Commission found Mr. Brown qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Englebardt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court Judge.
Mr. Englebardt was born in 1964. He is 45 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Englebardt provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989. Mr. Englebardt was also admitted to the N.C. Bar in 1990.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Englebardt.
Mr. Englebardt 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. Englebardt reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Englebardt testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior   to the screening.
Mr. Englebardt 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. Englebardt to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Englebardt described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name   Date
(a)   SCDTAA Joint Meeting   7/22/2004;
(b)   NBI How to Litigate Your First Civil Trial in S.C.   12/17/2004;
(c)   District of South Carolina CM/ECF   2/3/2005;
(d)   ABA Transportation MegaConference   3/3/2005;
(e)   SCDTAA Joint Meeting   7/28/2005;
(f)   SCDTAA Annual Meeting   11/3/2005;
(g)   Changes to South Carolina   2/25/2006;
(h)   SCDTAA Joint Meeting   7/27/2006;
(i)   Changing the Rules, a Review   11/8/2006;
(j)   SCDTAA Annual Meeting   11/9/2006;
(k)   Uni-State Lawyers   3/3/2007;
(l)   NBI The Art of Settlement   4/24/2007;
(m)   SCDTAA Trial Academy   6/6/2007;
(n)   NBI Mediation A Valuable Tool   7/24/2007;
(o)   SCDTAA Annual Meeting   11/1/2007;
(p)   Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure   2/27/2008;
(q)   SCDTAA Joint Meeting   7/24/2008;
(r)   SCDTAA Annual Meeting   11/13/2008;
(s)   SCDTAA Trial Academy   6/5/2009.
Mr. Englebardt reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have taught sections on opening and closing arguments, expert cross-examination as a group leader at the SCDTAA Trial Academy.

I have also served as an instructor at NBI CLEs including "Mediation A Valuable Tool", "How to Litigate Your First Civil Trial" and "The Art of Settlement".

I also recently served as a judge at the most recent SCDTAA Trial Academy, presiding over a civil case tried by young attorneys, and critiquing them during jury deliberations."
Mr. Englebardt reported that he has published the following:

"I have authored course materials for NBI Seminars "What to Expect in Your First Civil Trial in South Carolina", December 2004 and "How a Mediator Can Help You", a chapter in course materials for NBI Course "Mediation, A Valuable Tool for Litigation", July 2007."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Englebardt did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Englebardt did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Englebardt has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Englebardt 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. Englebardt reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Englebardt appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Englebardt appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Englebardt was admitted to the South Carolina bar in 1989.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

Since I graduated from law school my legal practice has been with three law firms. I began as an associate at Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard where I had served as a law clerk between my second and third year of law school. I started work in August 1989 and was admitted to the Bar in November of that year. I then was admitted to the North Carolina Bar after the February Bar Exam in 1990 and have been admitted to the United States District Court in South Carolina and all three districts in North Carolina. As a result of having spent some time working in the defense of the asbestos cases I have practiced in all three federal districts in North Carolina as well as the district of South Carolina on a variety of other cases as well. Additionally, I have tried cases in State Court of North Carolina as well as many cases in South Carolina.

In January of 1998 I became a shareholder at Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard where I continued until January of 2001, shortly after the merger where that firm became known as Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd.

In January of 2001 I became a partner at Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney & Turner, P.A. I served as managing shareholder at that firm from July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004.

In September 2005 I became a shareholder at Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A. My practice has focused generally on the areas of insurance defense litigation, though I have handled a variety of plaintiff's cases as well as a small number of criminal/domestic matters. In 2000 I became certified as a mediator and have practiced as a mediator, mediating over 500 cases pending in both State and Federal Court. I am proud to have been listed in "Best Lawyers in America" since 2007 for my ADR practice and recently was pleased to receive notice that I will be so included in 2010. Also, I am now serving with regularity as an arbitrator, requiring me to make rulings and decisions as a nonjury judge.
Mr. Englebardt further reported:
My experience in criminal matters is admittedly limited. I have appeared in traffic court on a couple of occasions in the past for clients, but have never fully handled a significant criminal matter. Recently, however, I have begun participating in Youth Court, presiding over misdemeanor criminal matters arising in the schools. This has given me some additional exposure to the criminal process in terms of the procedures and penalties, as well as interaction with members of law enforcement and members of the Criminal Defense Bar who oversee the program.

Additionally, several times in the last few months I have attended General Sessions Court as an observer, trying to get a feel for the ebb and flow of criminal procedure.

Obviously, I will need to overcome my lack of experience in criminal matters were I to be elected as a circuit judge, however, I have always prided myself as being a quick learner and, despite not having had a true criminal practice, I have always kept abreast of the case law involving criminal cases by reading the advanced sheets regularly.   Obviously, it will take some study as well as listening to become familiar with criminal procedure, however, I believe I have a good handle of the Rules of Evidence and would be able to overcome my lack of experience in criminal matters to be an effective circuit judge.
Mr. Englebardt reported the frequency of his court appearance in the past five years as follows:
(a)   federal:   4-5 times;
(b)   state:     I have had 5 or so jury trials and many court appearances in State Court in this time period. As the practice has shifted toward more mediation, many few cases have gone to trial in the Upstate. I would estimate that I have tried 50 trials before a jury in my career.
Mr. Englebardt reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters as follows:
(a)   civil:     96%;
(b)   criminal:   2%;
(c)   domestic:   2%.
Mr. Englebardt reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows:
(a)   jury:     85%;
(b)   non-jury:   15% - Motion Hearings; I have not had any non-jury trials   in that time period.
Mr. Englebardt provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Englebardt's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   South Carolina Distributors and Livingston v. Livingston, et.al. This was a multimillion   dollar case involving a breach of contract and probate dispute over a family business tried   in Cherokee County.
(b)   __________ v. CSX. This was a wrongful death and personal injury case involving two occupants of a car hit by a CSX train at a crossing in Joanna, South Carolina. This was a   jury trial in front of The Honorable G. Ross Anderson in Federal Court in Anderson, South Carolina. After a week of trial, the jury granted us a defense verdict.
(c)   Davis v. King Chris d/b/a McDonalds. This was a lawsuit against McDonalds   Corporation over an injury which occurred in one of its parking lots. This case received much media exposure as at issue was the safety of the McDonalds playlands for children outside many of their restaurants. The case involved many complicated engineering and design issues.
(d)   Register v. US Steel Corporation. This was a premises liability case involving a severe   injury. It was tried to a verdict in Anderson County.
(e)   Martha Knecht v. Linda Long, Melvin Dennis Long, Sherlon Tench, Dennis Tench, Cynthia Masters and David Masters. This was a lawsuit involving 8 separate causes of action for malicious prosecution, civil and criminal assault allegations, abuse of process, conversion, breach of fiduciary duties, financial exploitation, etc. It lasted for more than 3 years, and involved several criminal hearings, motion hearings and eventually a 3-day jury trial resulting in dismissal of all causes of action against 5 of my clients prior to trial and defense verdicts for my remaining client.
The following is Mr. Englebardt's account of the five civil appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   Bear Enterprises v. County of Greenville, 319 S.C. 137, 459 S.E.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1995);
(b)   Camlin v. Bilo, 311 S.C. 197, 428 S.E. 2d 6 (Ct. App. 1993);
(c)   Threatt Michael Construction Company v. C&G Electric, 305 S.C. 147, 406 S.E.2d 374   (Ct. App. 1991);
(d)   Preckler v. Owens- Corning, 60 F.3d 824, 1995 WL 417731 (4th Cir. 1995);
(e)   Lindsey v. Vann, 2004-UP-442 (Ct. App).
Mr. Englebardt reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Mr. Englebardt further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Seat 4 in 2003. I was a candidate for Circuit Court Seat #4. There were 7 candidates in that race, and I was found qualified and nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Commission. I withdrew prior to the election in the General Assembly.

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Seat 3 in 2009. I was once again honored to have been found qualified and nominated, and withdrew prior to the election.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Englebardt's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Mr. Englebardt is married to Helen Elizabeth Burris. He has three children.
Mr. Englebardt reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   North Carolina Bar;
(b)   South Carolina Bar;
(c)   Greenville County Bar;
(d)   SCDTAA (Executive Committee Member since 2000);
(e)   North Carolina Bar Association; and
(f)   Upstate Mediation Network (Vice President 1999-2001).
Mr. Englebardt provided that he is a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Temple of Israel Board of Directors (2nd VP 2005-2007);
(b)   Greenville Little League (Coach);
(c)   PTAs of Stone Academy, League, Academy and Greenville High School;
(d)   Greenville High All-Star Booster Club;
(e)   Educational Foundation of the University of North Carolina (Upcountry Chapter Development Committee); and
(f)   UNC and UNC School of Law Alumni Association;
(g)   Best Lawyer's in America (included from 2007 to the present);
(h)   Board of Windsor Hope Foundation (2009).
Mr. Englebardt further reported:

When I ran for a Circuit Court seat in 2003, I wrote about watching my parents work as volunteers as drug counselors while I was a child and how their experiences affected my views on equal justice under the law. While I still have those feelings, obviously a great deal has happened in my life since that time.

In 2005 my wife, sons and I made the decision to add the 13 year-old daughter of a family friend who had passed away to our family. This child had been adopted by her grandmother (the family friend who died) at a young age after her birth parents lost their parental rights. This forced me to quickly learn to have a great deal of patience and to be firm with my judgments in dealing with not only the normal issues of a larger family but also with raising a teenager (now two teenagers).

Additionally, obviously there are some special issues that arise in raising someone who has been through what my daughter has been through. Not only did her birth parents lose custody of her and both eventually end up in prison, but also she had to deal with losing the only parent she ever really knew to cancer. As a result I think I've had to develop a sensitivity and at the same time a toughness that I'm not sure I had previously.

Moreover, I've been exposed to a different side of our legal system as I've watched her birth parents work in and out of the criminal justice and prison systems. While I've only been an interested observer as to these machinations, I've found the actions of the solicitor's office, the appointed defense counsel, the parole officers, and even the sentencing judges to be quite educational, especially since that area of the law is the one I've had the least exposure to in my career.

As a result of all of this, I believe I am better suited to sit on the circuit court bench than I was at the time of my first campaign. I also believe that the patience and friendships I've made during my previous runs for a seat on the Circuit Judge bench will serve me well if elected.
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Englebardt "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The committee states they "continue to find nothing but positive comments and reports regarding his qualifications for this position."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that Mr. Englebardt has diverse legal experience as a trial practitioner, which would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench. They also noted his confidence at the Public Hearing, which would assist him as a jurist.
(12)   Conclusion:
The Commission found Mr. Englebardt qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Fretwell meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Fretwell was born in 1974. He is 35 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Fretwell provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1999.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Fretwell.
Mr. Fretwell demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in
the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Fretwell reported that he has made $21.83 in campaign expenditures for stationery, research fee, ink, copies, and mailing.
Mr. Fretwell testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Fretwell testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Fretwell to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Fretwell described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name     Date
(a)   Polishing Trial: Beginning to End     5/3/09;
(b)   Death Penalty Update     8/21-22/08;
(c)   Technology in Prosecution     5/11/08;
(d)   2007 Annual Conference     9/23/07;
(e)   7th Annual Meeting     5/13/07;
(f)   2006 Annual S.C. Solicitors'   9/24/06;
(g)   Cross Examination   8/28/06;
(h)   13th Circuit Solicitor's Office   5/06/06;
(i)   Avoiding Errors in Closing   9/27/05;
(j)   Ethics & P.R. Training Tracks   9/26/05;
(k)   Prosecution of Ted Bundy   9/25/05;
(l)   13th Circuit Solicitor's Office   5/08/05;
(m)   Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE   9/27/04;
(n)   2004 Annual Solicitor's   9/26/04.
Mr. Fretwell reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Guest Speaker, Bob Jones University Criminal Justice Class   [3/7/08]

Topic: Answering Pre-submitted Questions about Criminal Prosecution
(b)   CLE Speaker, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Conference

Topic: Applicability of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments Right to Counsel
(c)   Guest Speaker, Bob Jones University Criminal Justice Association

Topic: A Prosecutor's Role
(d)   Guest Speaker, Bob Jones University Criminal Justice Camp

Topic: The Courts
(e)   Judge, We The People: Project Citizen   , (7/14/06)
(f)   Attorney Coach, Bob Jones Academy Mock Trial Team (2000 - Present)
(g)   Judge, Greenville County Youth Court
(h)   Presiding Judge, American Mock Trial Association Regional Tournament
(i)   Scoring Judge, American Mock Trial Association Regional Tournament
(j)   Scoring Judge, National High School Mock Trial Competition (2005)
(k)   Attorney Coach, Bob Jones University Mock Trial Team (2004-05)
Mr. Fretwell reported that he has published the following:

"Growing up With Grandparents" Today's Christian Senior, (Spring   2007) *Article title may reflect editorial alteration
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Fretwell did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Fretwell did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Fretwell has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Fretwell was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Fretwell reported "as a public sector attorney, I have neither been listed in nor rated my Martindale-Hubbell to the best of my knowledge."
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Fretwell was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1999.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

Assistant Solicitor, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 08/99 to Present.
Mr. Fretwell further reported:

Although I am assigned to the Violent Crimes Unit, drug cases have comprised the majority of my prosecutorial workload over the past five years. Common issues involved in drug cases include: (1) evaluating the credibility of undercover informants; (2) identifying police conduct implicating the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches & seizures; (3) determining the propriety of police-citizen encounters and interrogation of suspects within the Fifth Amendment framework; (4) verifying proper chain of custody for all fungible items and (5) responding to these and other suppression motions by oral argument.

I am also responsible for handling most of the arson cases in Greenville County. Common issues in arson cases include: (1) evaluating how law enforcement and arson investigators determine a fire's cause and origin; (2) reviewing the thoroughness of the investigation to rule out accidental and natural causes; and (3) learning the scientific process utilized by analysts to determine the presence of ignitable liquids and fuel loads in preparation for presenting this evidence at trial.

As the liaison for law enforcement "cold case" units, I evaluate the sufficiency of evidence obtained by cold case investigators and provide an alternate perspective for pursuing leads and uncovering additional evidence. In 2006, I successfully prosecuted a defendant in a double homicide that had been "cold" for over four years prior to arrest and have served as lead and co-counsel in other murder cases. I have also assisted in a recent capital prosecution by conducting the preliminary hearing that resulted in the case being bound over for grand jury action.

Additionally, I have been involved in the mock trial program in South Carolina for eight years. The cases considered by the mock trial programs are evenly divided between civil and criminal subject matter and require an understanding of the distinction between civil and criminal cases such as burdens of proof and legal presumptions. I have served as the attorney coach for the Bob Jones Academy team who, during my tenure, twice won the State Championship and, in 2004, won the National Championship. I have also served as an attorney coach at the middle school and collegiate levels. I have served as a judge, both presiding and scoring, on the high school and collegiate level, and have most recently served as a presiding judge in multiple rounds at the American Mock Trial Association's District Competition hosted by Furman University. I served as a judge for the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2005.

I participated in the creation of Greenville County's school-based Youth Court Program and have served as a judge in this program many times. I have served as a judge for the South Carolina Bar's "Project Citizen" program hosted by Clemson University and was, for a number of years, a judge in competitions presented by the National Forensic League.
Mr. Fretwell reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:

(a)   federal:   None;
(b)   state:     In court 2-3 weeks each month for pleas, trials or motions.
Mr. Fretwell reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:

(a)   civil:           0%;

(b)   criminal:     100%;

(c)   domestic:     0%.
Mr. Fretwell reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows:

(a)   jury:           0.1%;

(b)   non-jury:       99.9%.
He further noted "I carry 275 to 375 warrants on my docket at any given time, dispose of 500 to 600 warrants a year and try 2 to 5 cases a year. That doesn't even register as a percentage point."

Mr. Fretwell provided that he served as: "Primarily sole or chief counsel; associate counsel as a mentor or assisting another prosecutor in a complicated murder case."
The following is Mr. Fretwell's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   State v. Carla Taylor, 260 S.C. 18, 598 S.E.2d 735 (Ct. App. 2004)-Overruled State v. Chisolm, 355 S.C. 175, 584 S.E.2d 401 (Ct. App. 2003), and established the current test for proving chain-of-custody for drug cases in South Carolina.
(b)   State v. Jomer Hill, Op. No. 4507 (S.C. S. Ct. filed February 24, 2009) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 10 at 67)-This case involved one of the first cold case arrests since the Greenville Police Department started its cold case unit. The defendant was arrested in November 30, 2004 (four years after his crime), and was convicted of double-murder at trial in May of 2006.
(c)   State v. Gustavo Alvarado, AP 2005-UP-120 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)-Defendant was convicted of Trafficking in Marijuana and sentenced to 18 years. Defendant appealed on the basis that the stop was pretextual and without probable cause. The Court of Appeals disagreed and the conviction was affirmed. A significant aspect of this case was that the passenger, Gallegos, testified that the drugs were his and the defendant, Alvarado, didn't know anything about them. The case on appeal focused on the element of the defendant's ability to exercise dominion and control over the drugs or over the premises upon which the drugs were found.
(d)   State v. Jermaine Hawkins-Defendant was convicted in absencia of two counts each of Armed Robbery and Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature. This case is significant to me because of the profound effect these crimes had on the victims and that the identification of the defendant was strong enough to convict the defendant in his absence. The defendant petitioned for post-conviction relief (PCR) and his application was granted since the trial judge did not specifically charge the jury panel at the conclusion of the trial that the defendant's absence should not be held against him. Following the granting of the defendant's application for PCR, this case was resolved by way of a guilty plea.
(e)   State v. Jeffrey Motts-Handled the preliminary hearing where this capital-murder case was bound over for grand jury action. The defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death.
Mr. Fretwell reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.
Mr. Fretwell further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

I ran as a candidate for the Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 13 in 2007-08 and was found qualified and nominated by the South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC). Once I learned that a candidate in that race had secured enough pledges to be elected, I immediately withdrew from the race.

In September of 2008, I again filed as a candidate for the Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 1. I was found qualified, but not nominated, by the JMSC.

In April of 2009, I filed as a candidate for residential Circuit Court Seat 3 in Greenville. The JMSC again found me qualified and nominated for the Circuit Court, but I withdrew from that race when I realized that, although I had a growing base of support, Judge Robin Stilwell had secured enough pledges to be elected.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Fretwell's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Mr. Fretwell is married to April Elaine Fretwell. He does not have any children.
Mr. Fretwell reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

South Carolina Bar;

Member, S.C. BAR Nominating Committee   2007 - Present;

Member, House of Delegates   2002-03; 2006 - Present;

Member, Law Related Education Committee   2004 - Present.
Mr. Fretwell provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Colonel Elias Earle Historic District Association

President, 2008 - Present

Vice President, 2008

Neighborhood Liaison to the City of Greenville, 2008

Member, 2007 - Present;
(b)   *Roper Mountain Science Center Association

Member, 2001- summer 2009

President, 2007-08;
(c)   Center for Developmental Services Children's Carnival

Volunteer, 2004-07;
(d)   Hampton Park Baptist Church

Member, 1986 - Present.
*The RMSCA is a non-profit, eleemosynary "friends" group that supports the Roper Mountain Science Center (RMSC) through fundraising, volunteer recruitment and community involvement. The RMSC is a facility dedicated to the education of school-aged children and young people in the sciences and is owned and operated by the School District of Greenville County.
Mr. Fretwell further reported:

I understand the distinction between the role of a judge and the role of an advocate. As a prosecutor, I advocate on behalf of the State. As a judge, I would have no advocacy role whatsoever. A judge has "no friends to reward nor enemies to punish." I would strive to treat every litigant and attorney equally and with the respect with which I would wish to be treated.

As a Christian, I have adopted an ethical code for my life that includes many of the principles reflected in the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct. One of these principles is to treat others as I would like to be treated. My courtroom experience has taught me the importance of a level playing field where rules are consistently and fairly applied. My primary goal as a circuit judge would be to fairly, impartially and consistently apply the law. The prospect of studying new areas of the law is exciting to me, as I have always enjoyed learning. I realize, however, that the academic aspect of the judicial process will not be my only concern. I want to perform my duties in an ethical manner that honors our system of justice.

My siblings and I were raised by my grandparents after my mother died of liver cancer. As educators, my grandparents taught us the value of hard work and a good education. They worked and sacrificed to provide us with the highest quality of life. My grandfather taught me to do my best, even in the little things, and to finish the job. He put our needs ahead of his own and was kind and helpful to everyone he met. Living and working in Greenville, I encounter his former students who remember him fondly and tell me how he profoundly and positively influenced their lives. I want to influence people as a circuit judge in the same positive and caring way that my grandfather did throughout his life.

As a trial attorney, I have observed many different lawyers, jurors and judges. I have waited for court to start, and I have had judges wait for my witnesses to appear. I have talked with witnesses about their fear of the courtroom and heard fellow attorneys concerned about the "mood" of the judge that day. Some judges have displayed extraordinary discernment and temperament in their roles, and others have failed to do so. Judges greatly influence the public perception of our justice system. Although few remember the lawyers involved in a particular case, most people remember the judge. I want to be the kind of judge who is the same both on and off the bench and who neither forgets the responsibilities nor violates the public trust of judicial office.
The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Fretwell to be "Well-Qualified" in all areas but one. Under "experience," the committee reported that Mr. Fretwell is "Qualified." In the comment, they stated, "Mr. Fretwell's lack of civil experience is our only concern; however, that does not prevent him from being qualified as a candidate for this position."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that Mr. Fretwell is known as a fair and even-tempered prosecutor with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office. They noted that he is regarded as a man of integrity and known for his contributions to the state Bar through his service on several key committees.
(12)   Conclusion:
The Commission found Mr. Fretwell qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Frick meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Frick was born in 1975. He is 34-years old and a resident of Winnsboro, South Carolina. Mr. Frick 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 2001.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Frick.
Mr. Frick 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. Frick reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Frick testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Frick 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. Frick to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Frick described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name   Date
(a)   S.C. Association for Justice Annual Conference   8/06/09;
(b)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Conference   8/07/08;
(c)   S.C. Public Defender Assoc. Annual Conference   9/29/08;
(d)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Conference   8/05/07;
(e)   S.C. Public Defender Assoc. Annual Conference   9/28/07;
(f)   ABA/YLD Fall Conference   10/20/06;
(g)   Jessie's Law CLE   6/30/06;
(h)   Prosecuting Homicide Case   5/07/06;
(i)   S.C. Solicitor's Assoc. Annual Conference   9/25/05;
(j)   S.C. Methwatch Program   3/11/05;
(k)   S.C. Solicitor's Assoc. Annual Conference   9/26/04;
(l)   Revised Lawyer's Oath   8/20/04.
Mr. Frick reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
He further stated:

"In the past, I have spoken to school children, community groups, and law enforcement about various legal issues."
Mr. Frick reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Frick did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Frick did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Frick has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Frick 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. Frick reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Mr. Frick reported the following regarding public offices:

"I announced I would run as a candidate for S.C. House of Representatives Seat #41 in the 2008 election, however, I ultimately did not file to run."
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Frick appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Frick appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Frick was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 2001.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   2001-02 Aiken County Public Defender

Assistant Public Defender;
(b)   2002-03 4th Circuit Solicitor's Office

Assistant Solicitor-Gun Crime Prosecutor & Juvenile Prosecutor for Darlington County;
(c)   2003-05 South Carolina Office of the Attorney General

Assistant Attorney General- General prosecution & animal fighting prosecutions;
(d)   2005-06 6th Circuit Solicitor's Office

Assistant Solicitor- Violent Crimes Prosecutor & Chief Prosecutor for Fairfield County;
(e)   2006-09 Law Offices of Koon & Cook PA

Associate & Winnsboro Office Manager

General practice in criminal law, domestic law, personal injury, worker's compensation, and social security disability;
(f)   2006-09 Lancaster County Public Defender

Assistant Public Defender (part time contract attorney);
(g)   2009-Present 6th Circuit Public Defender

Assistant Public Defender & Chief Public Defender for Fairfield County.
Mr. Frick reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   at least 5 times in district court and several times in   social security disability hearings while in private practice;
(b)   State:     at least weekly.
Mr. Frick further reported:

"Serving as a prosecutor in two judicial circuits, an Assistant Attorney General handling matters throughout the state, a public defender in two judicial circuits and a general practitioner attorney with a focus on criminal law, I have handled almost all criminal offenses from traffic tickets to murder. In my private practice I dealt with a wide variety of issues in personal injury from minor incidents to severely debilitating injuries, worker's compensation, limited work in contract disputes and researched areas of employment law. While my experience is clearly skewed toward criminal law, I feel that my work in civil matters is broad enough to ensure my competence with any civil matters before the bench."
Mr. Frick reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       20%;
(b)   Criminal:   55%;
(c)   Domestic:   25%.
"These percentages reflect my work while in private practice. While working as a prosecutor or public defender, my practice was 100% criminal."
Mr. Frick reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:         90%;
(b)   Non-jury:   10%.
Mr. Frick provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Frick's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   The State v. David Ray Tant- I served as lead counsel for the S.C. Attorney General's Office in this matter in Charleston County in which the defendant was charged with some 40 counts of animal fighting. This was the largest animal fighting case in South Carolina history and received extensive national media attention, as the defendant was alleged to be one of the top breeders of fighting dogs in the country. Due to the media attention, the venue of the trial was moved to Greenwood County. The defendant pled guilty at the close of the State's case and received a sentence totaling 40 years in the South Carolina Department of Corrections, the largest sentence for animal fighting in South Carolina and one of the largest in the United States.
(b)   The State v. Bobby Ray Hill- I served as sole counsel for the 6th Circuit Solicitor's Office in this case in Fairfield County in which the defendant was charged with a double homicide. The defendant confessed shortly after his arrest, but due to a history of serious mental health issues pled Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) to the charge of Murder. GBMI requires a showing of certain circumstances at a special hearing to determine the applicability of this type of plea. The defendant appealed his plea, but the S.C. Court of Appeals declared the appeal meritless and upheld the conviction in an unpublished opinion. 2008-UP-453.
(c)   The State v. Jerry McGriff- I served as sole counsel and represented the defendant charged with murder in Lancaster County. While there was little forensic evidence, witnesses stated that the defendant and another person, who was not on trial, were involved in an argument with the victim, yet there were no eye witnesses to the fatal shooting. The State proceeded and ultimately prevailed on accomplice liability theory stating that while no one could determine who was the actual shooter and the defendant did not intend to kill the victim, the defendant arrived at the victim's location to start a fight and the death of the victim was an expected result of those actions.
(d)   The State v. Randolph Frazier- I represented this defendant as sole counsel in three separate trials in Lancaster County for Burglary First Degree. Each trial had unique issues regarding eye-witness identification and dog tracking evidence. Dog tracking evidence has very little case law history in South Carolina and I was required to request the court to apply legal precedent from other jurisdictions about search and seizure issues regarding the taking of sent from the defendant and a jury charge regarding the use of dog tracking evidence. While my client was acquitted at the first trial and the jury could not reach a verdict in the second trial, the State ultimately succeeded in convincing a jury of his guilt in the third trial.
(e)   The State v. Larry William Smith- I served as sole counsel for the S.C. Attorney General's Office in this case in Darlington County in which the defendant was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor. The defendant was alleged to have forced the 12 year old victim into his house where he sexually assaulted the victim. The defendant maintained that the victim wanted to have sex with him, but he refused to do so and the victim made up this story as a result. As these cases are always quite difficult to prosecute, the State was fortunate to have DNA evidence, however the results stated that the likelihood of finding a person with similar DNA was 1 in 1200, whereas, the typical results in a successful prosecution put this likelihood to be 1 in several quadrillion. Despite these difficulties the defendant was convicted of the charge.
Mr. Frick reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Frick's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Mr. Frick is married to Ruxandra Elena Tudor. He has one child.
Mr. Frick reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar- 6th Circuit Representative-Young Lawyers Division (2006-present);
(b)   Fairfield County Bar- Secretary (2006-present);
(c)   Lancaster County Bar;
(d)   S.C. Association for Justice.
Mr. Frick provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Winnsboro Rotary Club- Board of Directors, President Elect;
(b)   Fairfield Behavioral Health Services- Vice Chair - Board of Directors;
(c)   First Steps of Fairfield County-Chairman - Board of Directors
(d)   Pine Tree Players- Board of Directors.
Mr. Frick further reported:

In my career, I have thus far handled legal matters in some 30 of the 46 counties of our State. In each county, I have heard someone say that some particular issue "only happens in..." I can expressly say that in my experience that the judicial system essentially metes out justice in the same way, with the same type of cases, and the same circumstances throughout South Carolina.

With my experience I can most assuredly say that defendants are rather much the same throughout the state, law enforcement proceeds in much the same way throughout the state, cases are prosecuted and defended in rather much the same way, and all entities are suffering from a want of funding, whether perceived or real. However, I have found that, particularly in the world of prosecution and public defenders, information is not readily exchanged on how to deal with particular issues. I would like to work toward the facilitation of the exchange of ideas that would help in expediting the handling of cases in our legal system. I would particularly like to do this in the criminal justice system and would like to work toward seeing "best practices" in all facets of the justice system, criminal and civil, implemented for the betterment of the seeking of justice for all involved in our court systems be they civil litigants, victims of crime, or criminal defendants.
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Frick to be "Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. They also found Mr. Frick: "met the minimum requirements. However, the Committee believes Mr. Frick needs additional experience to be an effective Circuit Judge. The decision of the committee was unanimous."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:
The Commission commented that Mr. Frick has a good reputation in his local community. They also noted his public service as an assistant solicitor, assistant attorney general, and work as a public defender.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Frick qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Hall meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Hall was born in 1954. He is 55 years old and a resident of York, South Carolina. Mr. Hall 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. He was also admitted to the North Carolina Bar in 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall 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. Hall reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Hall testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Hall 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. Hall to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hall described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name   Date
(a)   2008 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference   Sept. 28-30, 2008;
(b)   Evidence for Prosecutors - Tucson, Arizona   Nov. 4-8, 2007;
(c)   2007 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference   Sept. 23-26, 2007;
(d)   2006 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference   Sept. 24-27, 2006;
(e)   2005 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference   Sept. 25-28, 2005;
(f)   2004 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference   Sept. 26-29, 2004;
(g)   Focus on Sexual Assault Victims -

National Advocacy Center   August 2-6, 2004.
Mr. Hall reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Mr. Hall reported that he has published the following: Clergy Confidentiality: a Time to Speak and an Time to Be Silent, by Lynn Buzzard and Dan Hall, 1988 Christian Management Association.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hall did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or serious criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hall did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hall has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Hall 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. Hall reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Hall was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)   Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office Assistant Solicitor, 1988-90;
(b)   Sole Practitioner 1991-99

General practice with focus on personal injury, worker's compensation and criminal defense;
(c)   Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office Assistant Solicitor, 1999-present.
Mr. Hall further reported:
"I have been an Assistant Solicitor for the past ten years. I currently prosecute class A, B, or C felonies. I am employed as an assistant solicitor. I have no experience in civil matters in the past five years. I was in private practice from 1991 - 1999 and had a limited experience in the court of common pleas. My practice included criminal defense, personal injury, probate and some limited litigation in common pleas. I believe that I have the intellectual ability to quickly develop the necessary skills to preside in common pleas."
Mr. Hall reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     0%;
(b)   State:       100%.
Mr. Hall reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       0%;
(b)   Criminal:   100%;
(c)   Domestic:   0%.
Mr. Hall reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:         10%;
(b)   Non-jury:   90%.
Mr. Hall provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Hall's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
(a)   State v. Russell Holley 2002 GS 46 0698

Murder trial in which boyfriend stabbed girlfriend to death in a range of domestic violence. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole.
(b)   State v. Aaron Williams 2003 GS 46 2745

Burglary First Degree trial in which a seventy year old widow's home was invaded while she was alone. Victim was physically attacked. Defendant was sentenced to a thirty year prison sentence.
(c