| Printed Page 280, Jan. 13 | Printed Page 300, Jan. 13 |

I have to remember these people who come in my courtroom are -- many of them are scared to death when they come in there, so I try at all possible within certain parameters, of course, to make them as comfortable as possible and at least make them understand that they're going to be treated as fairly as I can possibly do it.

You know, I make no bones about the fact I smile at people in my courtroom all the time. I don't -- I've known no one at this point that's been offended because I smiled at the other side, but sometimes that tends to put people a little bit at ease, I think. It makes them feel better about being in there.

If I have any problems with the attorney's conduct, I be sure -- I'm always sure to take the attorneys into chambers, so that the parties aren't afraid that it's going to hurt their case for some reason. So I do everything I can to make people as comfortable as possible and make them understand that I realize they're scared and that I'm going to try to treat them as fairly as I can.
Q. Also in the area of judicial temperament, how do you approach attorneys? What -- if you disagree with an attorney and it's on a very important matter, how do you handle that and is it -- how often do you handle it right there in the courtroom with the litigants being present?

If an attorney is -- I believe is on the verge of maybe becoming excessive in their conduct, I'll try to get both of the attorneys or all of the attorneys and the parties in the case back in my chambers and talk to them and just try to get them settled down.

There have been a couple of times that I've had to do that just to get attorneys calmed down and settle down a little bit, so that we can back to sort of a modicum of conduct in the courtroom.
Q. Also in the area of judicial temperament, your relationship outside of the courtroom with attorneys in terms of ex parte communication, what do you do to safeguard the appearance you have as a dispassionate jurist?
A. I do not allow ex parte conversation or communication. The attorneys know that. I'm -- some say I'm always nice about the way I do it. Some say I'm too nice, but I always make a point of being sure that they're not going to be able to do that.

If an attorney -- and, of course, I have the same problem that I've heard some other judges discuss here today as Administrative Judge of the Eleventh Circuit for the Family Court. There are problems that prop up from time to time in administrative matters, but in terms -- if it ever reaches the point or we start to reach that threshold of the merits, that is when I stop the conversation.

And one thing that I've learned to do on my telephone is -- it took me a while to do it because I'm not as good as my son with these things, but I learned to use the conference is capability, so if an attorney is calling me and it looks like they're about to, I just say wait, you know, stop right there. Let me get the other attorney on the phone and we -- and very, very many times we've been able to handle it with a conference call.

If one is in the office, I'll try to get the other on the phone still to see if we can do that way, but I just don't do it.

I would note that one area that the problem is, and I imagine some other judges have this, it's not so much with attorneys, but as individual litigants who will call you in court and say I want to talk to the judge. Or they'll want to talk with my secretary and I've tried to tell her be very careful not to talk with them, but sometimes it's difficult to tell them because often lay witnesses don't understand that, but we just have to make sure they abide by it.

But I like the attorneys that I deal with and I do not -- I think I've had lunch with two attorneys at one time in the last two to three years and I paid for lunch. And the reason we did it is because we were talking about a mediation project that we're doing in Family Court and these were the attorneys who were heading it up and, again, I paid for lunch. I just did it to make sure there were no questions, but I just don't accept gifts.

You know, when I first came on the bench there was a sort of routine habit that attorneys would give Christmas gifts and it was not so much gifts as food and platters and they just bring them to the court and not maybe to a particular judge and we've had to get away from that. We've just had to be sure that we do.

You know, I've often heard it said in the past all -- when I first started, I tended to think well, you know, if somebody gives me a 25 cent little plastic pen, that's not going to make me rule for them and it's not, but one thing I've realized is that if they give it to me, I may be tempted to think, well, you know, that's nice of her, very nice of him to do that and no matter how minute that may be, that's an impression. And it may be too small, but it's an impression, so I've just gotten to where I just stay away from stuff. It's better to just stay away.
Q. Judge, if you were to be elected to the Circuit Court bench, what is your term of commitment? Do you intend to serve through the --
A. Six years, yes, sir. And I would plan to serve that term out.
Q. Can you describe your work day, when would it start, when would it end, how do you try to accomplish things, how do you manage your docket?
A. We routinely start court at 9:00 o'clock and we try -- our docket is set by the docketing clerk who works for the Clerk's Office. She handles it and we're very sure all three of our judges in our Circuit make a point not to try to discuss with her how she sets the cases or to influence her in any way.

There are, of course, some exceptions that have to be, but as a general rule, we do not do that. She sets them independently. She's -- we try to set them 9:00 to 5:00. She'll probably stop around 12:00, some cases around 12:30 in the morning and try to stop maybe around 4:30, 4:45 in

I will -- I stay and usually finish my paperwork after that and a routine day, I will leave the office probably 6:00, 6:30 or 7:00, somewhere in that range.
Q. Do you anticipate making that same type of time commitment or more and be able to keep to it if you were put on the Circuit Court Bench?
A. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I think Circuit Courts don't normally start at 9:00 o'clock, but whatever their schedules are, I would obviously try to comply, work with the schedule that they have in place.
Q. There has been is a lot of academic writing in recent years about the rights of varying litigants that are involved in domestic cases, particularly custody cases.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There has been a lot of controversy over the rights of litigants as to notice and being able to get involved in a case. You saw the recent cast in Michigan where parental rights were overturned by an adopting family because under Iowa law the father wasn't properly notified and included in the original determination of the child being forwarded to Michigan.

How do you ensure that custody orders are -- I wouldn't say bulletproof. Is a custody order, not necessarily an adoption order, but a custody order itself, do you usually grant those ex parte or what factors would you take in a case into account if you were going to handle a custody order ex parte?
A. I don't usually grant custody ex parte. Now, you're talking about when the parties first come in?
Q. Right.
A. And they say I want ex parte custody, I don't usually grant those ex parte. What I do is if they -- if one side -- if the attorney has an affidavit and, of course, they have to have an affidavit that says that the other side is about to take the child and flea the state and that's the only time I will sign one and I will simply say neither party is allowed to take the child from the state or from the jurisdiction of the court. I limit it to that. And then what I do is because we're dealing with children in these cases, we

I don't -- in the past, there may be some years back, but it would have been years ago. I can't remember granting ex parte custody all. I can't guarantee that I haven't, but I don't think I have.
Q. And that's just and you're the only Family Court judge before us, so that's why I asked that question.
A. Right.
Q. It's just something that's some concern.
A. Right. And I think I would say I don't think most judges do that either.
Q. In terms of in working with attorneys, I would imagine the Lexington County Bar is a fairly small Bar in terms of with relationship to Richland County. It's certainly growing, but there are times when because of personal relationships or whatever, folks may call upon you to recuse yourself. What standard do you apply when you're questioned or whenever you just recognize there may be a problem? How do you go through that thought process and how do you deal with it?
A. All right. Well, let me note first, actually the Lexington County Bar is not that small. It's about 100 and 150, probably close to 150 people. And, of course, as you indicated just a moment ago, we have a lot of crisscross between Lexington and Richland, so there is a great deal of merger between the two and we literally look as if we're dealing with one bar when we deal with both of them.

But recusal is -- basically, it comes about in two ways. It comes about by motions by from the attorneys on one side and it's come about sometimes through responding.

Obviously, if I have some sort of relationship with the parties involved, I would recuse myself whether it's familial, financial or any other relationship. The two things that I probably do in terms of -- in the community are, and I'm sure you've noticed from my sheet, I'm very active in the baseball league that my sons play in and very active into my church and if anyone from either of those comes in, I would not hear those cases.

But anyone who I've represented before, of course, anyone that I may have any other ties to, I do not and there maybe some cases from time to time that I may know someone just from the community and, basically, I just take the position that if I rule as I should rule in this case and I would be uncomfortable encountering him or her later, then it's better to go ahead and recuse, just to be sure.

But if there is any sense of discomfort about hearing the case, I go ahead and get out of it and we -- in our circuit, we probably do it probably a little more than usual because we have that convenience of having another judge there.
Q. You certainly have an advantage to some degree of being a sitting judge running for an elevated position, but also you're subject to the same questions I've asked other sitting judges --
A. Right.
Q. -- as it relates to recusal and lawyer-legislatures?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That has been a topic that has been of some concern to the Bar and to the Committee, what standard do judges apply when lawyer-legislators come before them? What standard do you use in that case?
A. As I heard you say in one hearing, obviously, the lawyer-legislators have to make a living and they have to be in court. I don't think there's ever going to be a real good answer. It's a thorny question. So I don't know that I would ever be able to give you an answer that would satisfactory everyone.

What I do in those cases is, of course, if a lawyer-legislator is involved, I hear the case and, of course, I have to, but as you know in Family Court, we, of course, are required to present written orders giving all of our findings of fact at the conclusion of the law.

And, of course, on the conclusion of the case, I simply am sure in that case to be sure to issue a thorough enough order to justify what I do. The

In Representative Beatty's case it was a close call and I suppose if I had really wanted to make myself, I could have made an effort to go ahead and rule for him and probably could have found a way to justify it, but I talked with him and the other attorney and explained to them and Representative Beatty in that situation was very gracious. He said, Judge, if that's the way it is, that's the way it is and my being a legislator shouldn't effect that and I frankly appreciated that and I appreciate the fact that I think what's happening is that besides being an awareness with the judges, there is also now an awareness much greater with the Legislature.

They are getting the same pressure we're getting and if a legislator comes before me in a case and he gets a distant, a way out ruling that shouldn't have been there, he knows he's going to have to explain that also, so we -- basically, that's the way we -- that I do it and again, there is never a good answer, but that's the -- I just think we do the best we can under those circumstances.
Q. Were you present this morning, Judge, when Judge Howard I think gave his answer to essentially the same question and we went through a discussion of he talked about am I in a unique position to singularly effect the outcome of the case, that's one thing, I take into account which I take it in Family Court would always be the case? There is never --
A. Oh, yes, sir.
Q. There is never going to be a jury?
A. Yes, sir. Not only do I direct the outcome. I am the outcome of the case.
Q. And then he says, but that's not enough. I have to look and see if the lawyer-legislators, is there some other unique circumstances that's seen as a special relationship with that person and I think just going back and trying to reconstruct his answer, more often than not, that was not the case, but he gave the example of Senator McConnell several weeks ago or maybe perhaps months ago that he was before him and he opted to be a mediator rather than be a jurist in that case on the bench. Do you agree that there could be some circumstances where that would be appropriate?

They try as much as possible to have support from people back in the states for their mission projects and one of the things that I think that they're trying to do is to have what is sort of a journeyman type missionary, such as lay people who get -- try to get support and go to the foreign countries.

They have -- I think they do -- or at least the folks in it who are the missionaries do some fund-raising. I stay away from that. Do not get involved in it. Do not allow my name to be used for that.

So basically that's what I -- frankly, my role has been we've met once a year and that has been the only role that I've had in it. Just going to those meetings once per year.
Q. You have -- might have been present yesterday when there was discussion came up about the application of the Canons that called upon judges to stay out of matters of some political volatility, things that would cause a public controversy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there was some discussion as to what role a judge should have and whether he has to totally divorce himself from society or form some middle ground. What's your understanding of the Canon? How do you apply it in your work now?

A judge's life is a limited life and I think any judge will tell you that, and when it comes to political issues, I frankly steer clear of them. I try to steer clear of them in personal conversations. If someone brings up some local issue or some other issue, I will steer clear and about the only thing I do is vote in any kind of a political sense, but I make a point not to express my opinion. I've asked my wife not to do that also.
Q. That's doesn't work with my wife.
A. Well, I didn't say it worked with her. I just asked her.
Q. In talking about home life or family, you do have a son. He is I believe in his twenties now or --
A. He's 19.
Q. 19?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I would imagine that your family commitment to him is a little bit different than when he was five years old?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But I want to be fair to everybody and ask the same questions. Do you envision any kind of a conflict this would cause with your duties in any terms of being a judge?
A. No, sir. I have two sons. One son is 19. The older one, Thad, 19, is a student at the University of South Carolina and lives on campus, so as I'm sure you're aware the only times I see him are basically when he determines that I'm going to see him and decides to come home.
Q. It's usually around -- resolves around needing money, as I recall?
A. Generally, yes, sir. There is a -- so we've -- he has a credit card now. We have to sort of keep an eye on the monthly bills, but usually it does.

The 15-year-old like any other 15-year-old is pretty much the same way. He doesn't always want his dad around, but he sort of determines when that's going to be and I do that.

I would note when I first went on the bench in -- I was a legislator at that time. As you know, I was in the House. There were two judgeships open. There was a Circuit judgeship open and a Family Court judgeship open and at that time, as you know, a Circuit judgeship, judges were traveling voluminously and Family Court judges were rarely traveling.

That didn't start until a couple of years later when Judge Ness became Chief Justice that there was a lot of Family Court traveling, but I chose the Family Court seat at that time because I would be able to fulfill my

At least from the time that you've served on the Family Court, you've only dealt with domestic matters. Could you tell the Committee a little bit about your experience prior to that or other ways that you are able to broaden your experience as to include criminal, civil?
A. Yes, sir. And I'm going to. I need also in a moment to discuss the Family Court experience, too, because I think that's more pertinent than it may appear. When I recall on the first application that I gave for a judgeship when I was asked to indicate my percentage, as I recall, ratio sort of experience, it was something to the effect of about 45 percent of my trial time was in Circuit Court and about 40 percent in Family Court. I actually practiced a little more in Circuit Court when I practiced and as I indicated I had an opportunity to do one of two at that time. I chose the Family Court bench. Or at least had the opportunity to run for those two.

I think my experience was extensive in Circuit Court as it was in Family Court prior to that time and, of course, the last ten years in Family Court, many people, you know, tend to think that it's just been limited to Family Court issues.

We do a substantial amount of criminal court work in Family Court as it applies to juveniles and while there are some differences between juvenile and adult treatment, if we have to try a case which we often have to do these days, the same Rules of Evidence, the same criminal law, the same criminal procedures very often will apply, so I don't think my experience with criminal work over the last ten years has been that limited.

There has been -- it has been limited to a degree with civil work although we have had -- we have civil issues that come into -- unfortunately come into family scenarios and very often come into our court, so I've had to deal with those on a little more limited basis also. I think my -- again, I think my extended -- my experience is a little more extensive than it may appear.
Q. Mr. Chairman, Counsel would like to ask at this time that the applicant be given the opportunity to update his PDQ on page 4, Questions

| Printed Page 280, Jan. 13 | Printed Page 300, Jan. 13 |