Journal of the Senate
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995

Page Finder Index
| Printed Page 2960, May 18 | Printed Page 2980, May 23 |
Printed Page 2970 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(Statewide Session)

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 12:00 Noon, the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

Our prayer today is based on a "Recipe For Living," by Johann Wolfgang Goethe.

Heavenly Father, grant us

"Health enough to make work a pleasure;

Wealth enough to support our needs;

Strength enough to battle with difficulties

and overcome them;

Grace enough to confess our sins and

forsake them;

Patience enough to toil until some good

is accomplished;

Charity enough to see some good in

our neighbor;

Love enough to move us to be

useful and helpful to others;

Faith enough to make real the things of

God;

Hope enough to remove all anxious fears

concerning the future."

Amen!

REPORT RECEIVED

Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening

Report of Candidate Qualifications

Date Draft Report Issued: Friday, May 19, 1995
Date and Time Final Report Issued: Tuesday, May 23, 1995 -- 10:00 a.m.
Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments

until Tuesday, May 23, 1995, at 10:00 a.m.

Candidates for Seat 2 of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit are not free to seek or accept commitments until further notice because the application filing period for that seat has been reopened.
Printed Page 2971 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Summary Chart
Circuit Court Candidates

Candidate: Beatty

Candidate: Paslay
Exper.: *

Candidate: Rollins

Family Court Candidates

Candidate: Abbott

Candidate: Alford

Candidate: Anderson
Exper. *

Candidate: Bonnoitt

Candidate: Buchan

Candidate: Butcher
Exper. *

Candidate: Byars

Printed Page 2972 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Candidate: Charles
Findings: *
Comp. with Canons: *

Candidate: Chewning

Candidate: Creech

Candidate: Edwards

Candidate: Fanning

Candidate: Foster

Candidate: Fraley

Candidate: Garfinkel

Candidate: Henderson

Candidate: Inabinet

Candidate: Jefferson

Candidate: Johnson

Candidate: Kelly

Candidate: Kinon

Candidate: Kittredge

Candidate: Lawrence

Printed Page 2973 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Candidate: Mack

Candidate: McClain

Candidate: Mobley

Candidate: Morehead

Candidate: Murdock

Candidate: Myers

Candidate: Paslay
Exper.: *

Candidate: Riddle

Candidate: Rogers
Findings: *
Comp. with Canons: *
Legal Ability: *
Temperament: *
Dilig.: *

Candidate: Saunders

Candidate: Sawyer

Candidate: Smoak

Candidate: Turbeville

Candidate: Watson

Candidate: Williams

Printed Page 2974 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
Several candidates' knowledge of the rules of practice and procedure in the court to which they aspire exceeded the Joint Committee's expectations. Those candidates are as follows:

The Honorable Wayne M. Creech

The Honorable Donald A. Fanning

Paul W. Garfinkel, Esquire

The Honorable John W. Kittredge

The Honorable Berry L. Mobley

The Honorable A. E. Morehead, III

The Honorable J. L. Murdock, Jr.

H. Bruce Williams, Esquire

Introduction

The Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. The Joint Committee has carefully investigated the candidates currently set for screening and found thirty-eight candidates qualified for judicial office and one candidate not qualified for judicial office. The Joint Committee did not reach a finding as to one candidate's qualifications as four members of the Joint Committee voted to find the candidate qualified and four members voted to find the candidate not qualified. This report details the reasons for the Joint Committee's findings and each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Joint Committee's nine evaluative criteria.

The Joint Committee's last report, issued in March of 1995, indicated that the Joint Committee had found all candidates treated in that report to be "legally qualified." The Joint Committee defined the term "legally qualified" to mean that the candidates met the requirements for judicial office set forth in the South Carolina Constitution. The Joint Committee determined that each candidate treated in this report meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the judicial office. The Joint Committee did, however, also make an overall finding as to whether each candidate was qualified or not qualified for service on the bench. The Joint Committee returned to its long-standing practice of making an overall finding as to candidate qualifications (and not simply a finding of legal qualification) because numerous members of the General Assembly requested that the Joint Committee do so, and the Joint Committee believes that its report will be more helpful to members of the General Assembly if it includes an overall finding as to each candidate's qualifications.

Printed Page 2975 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
The Joint Committee conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which it questions each candidate on a wide variety of issues. The Joint Committee's investigation focuses on nine evaluative criteria. These evaluative criteria are: integrity and impartiality; legal knowledge and ability; professional experience; judicial temperament; diligence and industry; mental and physical capabilities; financial responsibilities; public service; and ethics. The Joint Committee'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 Joint Committee is to make findings as to qualifications, the Joint Committee views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which, if elected, they will serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Joint Committee 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 it represents as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts.

The Joint Committee 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.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Joint Committee takes its responsibilities very 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

Printed Page 2976 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
it will help you make a more informed decision. If you would like to review portions of the screening transcript or other public information about a candidate before it is printed in the Journal, please contact Michael Couick or Nancy Goodman at 212-6610.

This report conveys the Joint Committee's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the circuit and family court. In addition, the Joint Committee has found the Honorable John Black, the Honorable Luke N. Brown, Jr., the Honorable Clyde K. Laney, Jr., the Honorable Robert R. Mallard, the Honorable William J. McLeod, and the Honorable Willie T. Smith, Jr., qualified for continued service as retired judges and has communicated its findings to the Supreme Court by way of a letter to the Chief Justice.

Donald W. Beatty, Esquire

Candidate for the 7th Judicial Circuit

Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Beatty was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Mr. Beatty demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Beatty to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Beatty indicated on his application that he has never requested a Martindale-Hubbell rating.
Mr. Beatty reported that he has been sued over a disputed title opinion, but that the case was dismissed.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Beatty has taught Business Law at Limestone College.
Mr. Beatty described his legal experience as follows:
(a) 1979-1981: Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Civil Practice, with emphasis on domestic, consumer, and public benefits.
(b) 1981-1988: Sole practitioner -- General Practice
(c) 1988-1992: Beatty, Vick & Tullis -- General Practice
(d) 1992-Present: Beatty Law Firm -- General Practice
Mr. Beatty indicated on his application that he appears in federal court on an "infrequent" basis and appears in state court "once or twice

Printed Page 2977 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
a week on the average." He described his practice as 40% civil, 25% criminal, and 35% domestic. He indicated that 10% of his practice involves jury matters and the other 90% is non-jury.
Mr. Beatty provided the Joint Committee with 5 of the most significant litigated matters he has handled. He described those matters to consist of:
(a) the defense of a retarded man who could not read, count, or handle his own affairs accused of leading a drug dealing ring;
(b) the defense of a man accused of the armed robbery of a motel who was identified in a tainted line-up and later acquitted;
(c) an action for payment of a credit life policy where the salesman intentionally completed the application forms incorrectly after learning of the insured's heart condition;
(d) the defense of an informant charged as a co-defendant in a drug trafficking case; and
(e) a workers' compensation action wherein the claimant's supervisors persuaded the claimant not to file the claim and later attempted to use the statute of limitations as a defense to the action for payment.
Mr. Beatty has never handled a civil or criminal appeal.
In response to the Joint Committee's request for a list of matters Mr. Beatty has taken to trial over the past 2 years, Mr. Beatty provided the Joint Committee with the following list of matters:
(a) Jeter v. Chapell: Auto accident involving a school bus. Representing claimant in this matter which is still pending.
(b) Love v. Foster & Petrea: Real estate transaction dealing with fraud. Took the matter to trial.
(c) Littlejohn v. Crestview Villa Apts.: Case dealt with failure of the landlord to repair leased premises. A child fell and was injured.
(d) Littlejohn v. Community Cash: False arrest matter.
(e) Shannon Rodgers by GAL v. Cherokee County School District: Tort Claims Act matter in which Mr. Beatty represented a school child who was injured playing football. Claim was for negligent repair of equipment. This matter is still pending.
(f) Keith Johnson & Jolette Johnson v. Atlantic Insurance, et al: Real estate transaction matter in which the house burned after the contract was signed but before closing. Took to trial.
(g) Jones v. Hooper Exterminating Co.: Auto accident case.
(h) Glenn v. Cloonan: A civil matter.
Printed Page 2978 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(i) Ebenezer Baptist Church v. Peak Construction Co.: Action to recover for construction defects. Mr. Beatty represented the church and took the matter to trial.
(j) Davis V. Pettit Construction Co. and Masonry, Inc.: Mr. Beatty represented the masonry company in this action for wrongful discharge and recovery of outstanding wages. Took to trial.
(k) State v. Ben Gibson: A criminal matter.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Beatty had engaged in an active trial practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Beatty's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Beatty is married with 3 children, ages 16, 6, and 2. Mr. Beatty was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Beatty appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Beatty has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Beatty served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1974 to 1976 and in the Army Reserves from 1976 to 1981. Mr. Beatty served on the Spartanburg City Council from 1988 to 1990 and in the House of Representatives from 1991 to the present.
Mr. Beatty reported membership in the following civic organizations:
(a) Spartanburg Progressive Men's Club (Parliamentarian);
(b) Omega Psi Phi Fraternity (President of Chapter);
(c) Spartanburg Development Council;
(d) Spartanburg Chamber of Commerce;
(e) NAACP;
(f) Legislative Black Caucus (Chairman of House Caucus and Chairman-Elect of entire caucus);
(g) Spartanburg Residential Development Corporation;
(h) Southside Neighborhood Associations Partnership;
(i) Piedmont Legal Services Board of Directors;
(j) Branch Bank & Trust Advisory Board; and
Printed Page 2979 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(k) Fluor Daniel/BMW Advisory Board.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Beatty testified that 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 pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Beatty meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Beatty qualified and said:
He is perceived as having the intellect and temperament for the position. While his trial experience has not been extensive, those interviewed believed that this factor would not prevent him from performing adequately as a circuit court judge. He has demonstrated his ability and willingness to learn.
Representative Beatty would not show partiality or favoritism to either litigants or attorneys.
His judicial temperament is expected to be excellent.

The Honorable James B. Paslay

Candidate for the 7th Judicial Circuit & for the

Family Court of the 7th Judicial Circuit

Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Paslay was screened on May 10, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Mr. Paslay demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Paslay to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Paslay was during law school:
(a) the winner of the Samuel L. Prince Moot Court Competition;
(b) a member of law review and editor of the law review book; and
(c) a member of a 3-person national moot court team.
Mr. Paslay has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.
Mr. Paslay has given the following law-related lectures:

| Printed Page 2960, May 18 | Printed Page 2980, May 23 |
Page Finder Index

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:11 P.M.