| Printed Page 6650, May 16 | Printed Page 6670, May 17 |

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Inn of Court

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
None

46. He was the recipient of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Portrait and Scholarship Fund - 1993

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Ashpy P. Lowrimore, Senior Vice President and City Executive
Southern National
P. O. Box 6676, Florence, SC 29502
664-1010
(b) William T. Monroe, Pastor
Florence Baptist Temple
2308 South Irby Street, Florence, SC 29505-3427
662-0453
(c) Alma M. Jenkins
Court Coordinator/Administrative Assistant (for Horry County)
P. O. Box 677, Conway, SC 29526
248-1353
(d) Honorable James C. Gregg, Jr.
Sheriff (for Florence County)
P. O. Drawer P, Room 703, City-County Complex, Florence, SC 29501
665-3005
(e) Honorable Gwen T. Hyatt
Clerk of Court (for Dillon County)
P. O. Box 1220, Dillon, SC 29536
774-1425

2. Positions on the Bench:
Circuit Judge at Large, Seat No. One, serving continuously since September 14, 1979

10. Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He has limited his community involvement so as not to conflict in any way with the performance of his duties. Generally, he involves himself in church and Bar activities.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints have ever been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands against you. We checked with the appropriate law enforcement agencies: Florence County Sheriff's Office, Florence City Police, SLED and FBI, and all those records are negative. The Judgement Rolls of Florence County are negative.

We do find federal court records that while showing no judgements or criminal actions against you, there were eight civil actions brought against you in which you were a defendant. Six of these were civil rights actions brought against you and others which have been dismissed. There was one mortgage foreclosure in which you and other defendants -- it appears that default was entered against the other defendants. There was one writ of habeas corpus filed and Summary Judgement was granted. Does that sound correct?
JUDGE ANDERSON: It is.
THE CHAIRMAN: No complaints, as I've said, were received against you. There are no witnesses present to testify against you. At this time I'll turn you over to Mr. Elliott for questioning.
JUDGE ANDERSON - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. It seems like just yesterday, doesn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Just a couple of questions. Since your last screening, have there been any changes in your status or anything of that nature that the Committee might need to know about?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. I know it gets confusing, but for this particular seat on the Supreme Court, have you sought the pledge of a legislator prior to the completion

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY OF JUDGE ANDERSON AT PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 29, 1994:

EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Judge Anderson, among the materials you submitted to this committee was an indication that your 1993 taxes are unpaid. Could you explain that? Is there --
A. No.
Q. -- any --
A. I just had not filed the --
Q. The return?
A. I was talking about the 1993, but all my taxes have been paid. Yes.
Q. On your Personal Data Questionnaire you mention that you're a member of the South Carolina Inn Court, and you spell that I-n-n?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us what that is?
A. That's an honor society at the law school established by then Chief Judge Sanders who invited a number of Circuit judges in the state, law professors and lawyers, trial lawyers to become a member of the Inn of Court. It's a national organization. It has its etiology in England in regard to people involved in the system coming to talk about the scholarship activities in regard to the law, concerns in the law,

You are invited to become a member and I was invited to become a member by that organization and have participated in general discussions. They normally meet at the law school. They normally have a general discussion about a topic that is identified and it is in most instances intellectually stimulating.
Q. Is there any special criteria for admission other than Justice -- Judge Sanders' invitation?
A. Well, he is not the only one that invites you. I think it's a committee that invites you and I do not know what standard they use. They just gave me the invitation and I accepted.
Q. All right. A little while ago you talked about how you get a large number of cases that are complicated cases and it seems to me that's true, and you've certainly listed some in your Personal Data Questionnaire. Do you enjoy the complicated case? How do you approach the complicated case?
A. It has been said to me publicly and privately that I am somewhat unusual in that I would rather try a complicated legal issue rather than what might be termed a standard trial, and I do not denigrate any litigation by the use of that word, but, yes, I do like the challenge of the high line issue case, both in the civil and criminal venues.
Q. Do you consider yourself successful as a judge in trying those cases?
A. The highest honor given to me in recent years has been the vote that I received unanimously by members of the bar in two scenarios, one in regard to judicial rating concerning various factors that was released some several months ago and, two, a rating that I got released this morning. I pride myself in giving everything that I have to the task and only say that I will continue to do that. That's what I've tried to do.
Q. You have a son who is an attorney and he practices law with the Attorney General's office. What do you do if you ever have one of his cases come before you?
A. I do not have the Attorney General's Office appear before me. I insulate myself from my son and the Office of the Attorney General.
Q. You have been engaged in politics in the past.
A. A long time ago.
Q. It's been a long time ago.
A. 15 years.
Q. What's your opinion about what a judge is able to do in the area of politics?
A. I do not believe a judge should engage in any political activities.

I ruled that as a matter of due process the State could not let an individual loose, turn that individual back into society and do nothing. And by the way, he lived in the venue almost the entire time only a few blocks from the Richland County Judicial Center, so I was somewhat appalled by the lack of law enforcement to do anything, and then I tried to make them responsible for their actions.
Q. Did you get a favorable review?
A. I think I did. I think nationally it was accepted as a case where unusual fact scenarios were presented in regard to individuals in like circumstance and there was some precedent around the country, very little directly on the point, and I tried to conclude the matter on due process issues. I think the review was favorable.
Q. In a past screening in 1979, you discussed at some length the distinction between your beliefs in and opinions in political life and your positions or conduct as a judge. And in that screening, you're talking about the role as a Circuit Court judge and you basically said you didn't think a judge ought to interject himself into the policy making decisions of the state in regard to things like capital punishment and mandatory sentencing. Now, you're seeking the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Do you see that any differently?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Also in that 1979 screening, you described yourself as a trial lawyer and you said you did not do very much
"office work practice," and it sounded like you really enjoyed the excitement of the courtroom and that's kind of what got your blood stirring. And now you're looking at a job where you're probably going to be sitting behind a desk a lot doing a great deal of research and have a little less interaction and excitement that you derived from the

I think the opportunity and privilege to write precedent is a tremendous opportunity and privilege. I do believe that the role in that regard would be different, but it is appealing to me to make that transition.
Q. A couple of things you touched on just then. Let's talk about the work ethic for a minute. What is a typical week for you in court?
A. Every morning at 7:30, I'm at the office everywhere, Charleston, Columbia, wherever I'm being assigned. Every morning, 7:30. I normally stay until about 7:00 in the afternoon. I have stayed later, to the consternation of counsel sometimes, but I suppose amelioration has set in. I try to be aware and cognizant of their load. I give a very full day to the job. Normally around ten hours.
Q. Yes, sir. I didn't know 7:00 o'clock was in the afternoon, but it's good to hear that. Did you -- have you had any complaints about your work schedule, that it's too long or do you hold court for too long?
A. Not in recent years. When I first went on the bench, I had probably exacerbated that work schedule to the point of a little too long and probably needed to truncate it somewhat which has occurred. I obviously recognize lawyers needed to get ready in the morning. Lawyers have the need to talk to witnesses, get their schedule ready and I've tried to tailor that.
Q. And you mentioned, too, a few minutes ago about writing and liking to write. And your writings have received some notoriety in the press. In fact --
A. I knew that was coming.

But you have received some notoriety in the press for using words that are probably not in common usage even among educated people, in particular, there was that article by James Kilpatrick. You're nodding your head. Apparently you're aware of it. How do you meet that criticism?
A. Well, I don't think it's a criticism really and I say that honestly and candidly because the lawyers who know me, we have repartee about words. I consider myself an etymologist. I love words. I also always have enjoyed words. Folk like Harpootlian, he's a word person. He will give me a word and challenge in a moment. Obviously, I would like to respond and I do enjoy responding.

Recently, a lawyer said to me, "You know, you've been a little inhibited in regard to your words and vocabulary." I said, "I don't want another Kilpatrick Number 2 syndrome.". I note that Kilpatrick didn't complain about the syntax or the grammar or the usage of the word. And I know he is constantly saying other people don't know anything about words.

It happens to be in the order that I issued, the lawyer before me was an honor graduate from Harvard Law School. He knew all those words. Throughout that trial, we had had constant colloquy and soliloquy concerning words and maybe Kilpatrick didn't understand the word and had to look it up, but Ned Zeigler didn't have to look it up. He knew it. He just lost.
Q. You might want to get with Ms. Boyd, our stenographer, after this is over and spell a few of those words for her. Do you have any experience as an acting justice or judge at the appellate level?
A. Five times, I have served on the State Supreme Court. That's a wonderful experience. Fantastic. The air and atmosphere there is certainly different from down at the trial level, in the pits and in the trenches. I did not have the opportunity to write. I was invited one time by Bubba Ness and I mentioned something about a dissent and the last thing I saw in his face was the information that I needed not to file a dissent.
Q. Judge Anderson, we took a look at the Court Administration's report on matters that judges had under advisement over 30 days and the period of time we looked at was 1992, 1993 and January of 1994 and you never

We talked about that more or less in terms of court, but the weeks you don't have court apparently you must spend a great deal of time in the office as well. Could you comment on that, please?
A. I spend a lot of time after hours. When I say in the afternoon and early in the morning, we don't require lawyers to come in. My law clerk is back here. And they say to work as my law clerk you are a survivalist. But insofar as the orders -- well, first I think the judge ought to decide.

A judge, federal judge, took an oath of office yesterday and she used that general presentation, you need to decide. I don't think the litigants should be delayed. I don't think an epiphany is going to occur after you hold it for 60 or 90 days. I think you need to stay with it, get the order out. That's what I try to do.
Q. Have you experienced any tension between meeting that 30 day mark and the quality of your orders?
A. None whatsoever. Background work is important to me, counsel. I do not know if you know this or not about my staff and I, but we have 50 notebooks. In those 50 notebooks accumulated over the years, we accumulate topics, opinions every week. Not a single week is missed. Every week when the State Supreme Court issues its opinions, we take those, we review them, read them, study them and then we place them in locations in the books. We work on the books and I use those books as resource material. I use that as the basis and premise for every case.

When we begin the term, we've got the books available. When we begin a hearing if that issue involves unfair trade practices, the Unfair Fair Trade Practices notebook is there. The cases for the last 10 years sequentially, chronologically identified in the book, and some charges that I've used over the years. I'm a charge person and I use those charges. The use of that background material enhances the consideration of the case in my judgment.
Q. As an appellate court judge, what do you think the practice should be about reading briefs, law clerk's memorandum, transcripts and otherwise knowing about those cases that aren't preassigned to you and what would be your practice?
A. Every brief will be read. Every paper will be read. That's my practice now when I try a case. I began a trial yesterday in Florence. It will last three weeks. They have identification of witnesses that exceed 100. That material, that information is available. I have reviewed that. I know that theories will be five in number for the Plaintiffs. I know what the theories are. I've already identified the notebooks involved in those

If you open every door in the courtroom continuously, the first thing when the door opens in the back door of the court facility in Florence, the jurors look. I have a tendency almost to look myself and so I do maintain some decorum. I think first that's a place where significant matters are being considered, that case is important to that litigant. I want to give it my best talent and capability. I want the jurors to do that very same thing. And I emphasize that to those participants.
Q. And you touched on judicial temperament some in that response, but describe for us what you consider to be good judicial temperament.
A. I think the judge should be willing to listen to the lawyers, listen to the witnesses, hear them out. Listen to those litigants and then rule. Now, the problem in regard to some folk when they review this process is that they do not understand that this is not a popularity contest position. You must rule. After you hear the parties and the litigants, you must issue an order. That order does not make everyone happy. Someone loses. I think the bottom line is to give everyone a fair hearing and then rule.
Q. What do you do -- assume you take a left or right turn in terms of judicial temperament and an attorney feels he has some reason to complain -- first of all, has that happened in the 13 or 14 years you've been on the bench?
A. I am so proud of what these lawyers have said in this report that they just handed this committee and I will treasure it whether I ever serve on the State Supreme Court a single day again. Members of the Bar interviewed indicated that they had received a fair trial any time they appeared before me. That is wonderful for me personally.

| Printed Page 6650, May 16 | Printed Page 6670, May 17 |