| Printed Page 870, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 890, Mar. 14 |

Dr. Herron's complaint about the service of the order was that the plaintiff received it several days before he did and one of the plaintiff's employees delivered it to Dr. Herron in a manner that embarrassed him publicly. Judge Ervin testified that he believed that the plaintiff's attorney received the order first because his office was in Anderson and since Dr. Herron's attorney is located in Columbia, he received the order several days later because of the mail service. Dr. Herron did not allege any specific wrongdoing in Judge Ervin's issuance of his order and the affidavits from the two attorneys tend to support Judge Ervin's view of what happened.

The Joint Committee found no evidence of ex parte communication or other inappropriate conduct in Judge Ervin's handling of this matter. Dr. Herron withdrew his allegation about ex parte communication after reading the affidavits on the matter, but still felt that the order was issued improperly. There is no evidence or even any specific allegation that Judge Ervin did anything wrong or out of the ordinary when he issued the order in this matter. The Joint Committee understands and regrets that Dr. Herron received notice of the order in a way that embarrassed him in front of his customers, but does not believe that Judge Ervin caused the unfortunate turn of events or otherwise acted improperly.

Judge Ervin testified that he does not accept gifts, but will occasionally accept ordinary social hospitality depending on the situation.

On the issue of recusal, Judge Ervin testified that he gives both sides an opportunity to be heard and if they want him to recuse himself, he will do so after full disclosure of the reasons for the motion. There are situations in which he would recuse himself right up front without further discussion, but he noted that it is a matter within the judge's discretion.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar indicated that Judge Ervin is very intelligent and knowledgeable. He has complied with all continuing judicial education requirements and has lectured at five continuing legal education programs. His books, Ervin's South Carolina Requests to Charge -- Civil and Ervin's South Carolina Requests to Charge -- Criminal, have been very well received.

Judge Ervin's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was a 2.4 out of a possible 4 points. He demonstrated a thorough understanding of the standards of appellate review, en banc hearings, and writs of certiorari. He was less well versed about writs of supersedeas and which matters may not be referred to the Court of Appeals.

Judge Ervin testified that he has experience with alternative dispute resolution measures as he held the first settlement week in Anderson county.

3. Professional Experience:

Judge Ervin has been a circuit court judge since 1985. Prior to his election, he was an administrative law judge with the South Carolina Industrial Commission (now the Workers' Compensation Commission) for almost one year. Prior to his appointment to the Industrial Commission he was engaged in the general practice of law from 1977 to 1984. His practice involved both criminal trial work and civil litigation as well as workers' compensation, employment security, social security, and domestic matters. He served as the town attorney for Honea Path, an assistant solicitor for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, and as Special Prosecutor for the Eighth Judicial Circuit.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The input the Joint Committee received from its surveys and from the Bar indicates that Judge Ervin's temperament is outstanding.

5. Diligence and Industry:

Judge Ervin 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.

Judge Ervin testified that he would serve a full term if elected and that he had no plans to return to private practice.

When the Court of Appeals receives a case it assigns the matter to one particular judge who is responsible for drafting an opinion after oral argument. There are normally three judges on the panel that hears the oral argument, but only one of the three judges has been pre-assigned the task of writing the opinion. The Joint Committee asked Judge Ervin if he would prepare for all matters that came before his panel, or just those to which he has been pre-assigned to write the opinion. Judge Ervin testified

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Ervin 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. Judge Ervin has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Judge Ervin has been a circuit court judge for ten years and was an administrative judge for one year. He also served as a member of the House of Representatives from 1980 to 1984. He is a member of various professional organizations such as the National Conference of State Trial Judges, the Association of Circuit Court Judges, and the Federal Court Relations Committee of the American Bar Association. He is currently on the national board of directors of the American Judicature Society.

9. Ethics:

Judge Ervin 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;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening; or
(d) used his judicial letterhead or the services of his staff to campaign.

Judge Ervin testified that he has spent $2,150 on his campaign and that he has reported these expenditures to the House and Senate Ethics Committees. Judge Ervin indicated that most of his expenditures were for dinner meetings he held with friends around the state to discuss the viability of his candidacy and for typing, postage, and copying costs.

Judge Ervin also testified that he understood the new Joint Committee rule requiring him to wait forty-eight hours after the draft report is released before he may begin seeking commitments.

Judge Ervin reported that he has not received royalties or other income from the sale or publication of his books, Ervin's South Carolina Requests

10. Miscellaneous:

Judge Ervin testified that he seeks elevation to the Court of Appeals because he sees it as the natural progression from his current position. He testified that he does not want to rule out other options, but has no plans to ever return to private practice.

The Joint Committee received one statement in support of and one statement in opposition to Judge Ervin's candidacy. Mr. Christopher Wellborn an attorney practicing in Rock Hill filed an affidavit with the Joint Committee stating that Judge Ervin is very well qualified and capable of service on the Court of Appeals. Mr. Walter K. Herron, D.V.M. of Anderson filed an affidavit in opposition to Judge Ervin's election. Mr. Herron's affidavit is discussed above.

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Mr. Hagood was screened on February 1, 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:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Mr. Hagood's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Mr. Hagood demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. He testified as to the issue of ex parte communications, that he understands the rule as strictly prohibiting ex parte communication on all substantive matters and that he would comply with both the letter and spirit of the rule.

Mr. Hagood testified as to the issue of recusal that he is not aware of any general class of matters that he would disqualify himself from, but that he is a stockholder in a closely held corporation in which his family members are the other stockholders and he would not hear a case that could affect that company.

Mr. Hagood was working as an Assistant United States Attorney and was investigating a corporation for possible environmental law violations. He told corporate counsel that the employees of the corporation were not targets of the investigation. Several weeks later, on the night before presentment to the grand jury, Mr. Hagood received documents that made one of the employees a target. Mr. Hagood proceeded with presentment to the grand jury without informing corporate counsel of the employee's change in status. The employee was called to testify before the grand jury and Mr. Hagood advised him of his rights before he began. Corporate counsel learned of the employee's change in status at the next break in the proceedings and immediately obtained separate counsel for the employee. The employee later became a defendant and pled guilty.

The employee's attorney responded to the Joint Committee's request for information by filing an affidavit stating that Mr. Hagood was under no obligation to inform corporate counsel of the employee's change in status and while such action might have been a good idea, he believes Mr. Hagood's failure to do so was simply an oversight and not improper conduct. Mr. Hagood was not sanctioned by the United States Attorney or Justice Department, and both he and the employee's attorney contend that he complied with the law and Justice Department policy.

The Joint Committee believes that, while Mr. Hagood perhaps should have told corporate counsel about the employee's change in status, he was under no legal obligation to do so and his conduct was not unethical or improper.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar indicated that Mr. Hagood is very intelligent and knowledgeable. Mr. Hagood's law school record included service on law review and work as a legal writing instructor and consultant to the State Reorganization Commission.

Mr. Hagood has complied with all continuing legal education requirements and has lectured on approximately sixteen different occasions over the last several years. Most of his lectures were on environmental law topics.

3. Professional Experience:

Mr. Hagood has experience that would relate well to service on the Court of Appeals. He worked as law clerk to the Honorable Randall T. Bell from 1983 to 1984 and has handled four civil appeals and many criminal appeals. He has experience in both state and federal appeals courts and has attended and taught courses on appellate advocacy. He has also enjoyed a practice in which he has gained experience with varied aspects of the law. Mr. Hagood's practice has been approximately 39% civil, 60% criminal, and 1% domestic over the past five years.

Mr. Hagood has been an Assistant United States Attorney since 1990 when he joined the civil division and began handling various matters involving federal agencies in bankruptcy and district court. In 1991, he moved to the criminal division in which he investigated and prosecuted various criminal cases that included drug, organized crime, federal murder, and environmental enforcement matters. He has served as chief of the Environmental Enforcement Section since 1993 and has investigated and prosecuted criminal and civil environmental enforcement cases and other general criminal cases.

Mr. Hagood was with Buist, Moore, Smythe, and McGee from 1987 to 1990, first as an associate and then as a partner. His work at the firm involved personal injury, commercial, insurance, construction, environmental, and other civil matters as well as a few court-appointed domestic cases. Mr. Hagood testified that he tried approximately a dozen cases to verdict during this period of time.

Prior to his association with Buist, Moore, Smythe, and McGee, Mr. Hagood was first law clerk to the Honorable Randall T. Bell (1983-84) and then counsel in the United States Marine Corps (1985-87).

The input the Joint Committee received from its surveys and from the Bar indicates that Mr. Hagood's temperament is outstanding. A very small number of anonymous survey respondents indicated that because of his prosecutorial background, Mr. Hagood might lack compassion, but the Joint Committee found Mr. Hagood's testimony that he finds personal gratification in his work and has been active in church and community charitable activities to be very persuasive.

5. Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Hagood 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.

Mr. Hagood testified that he would serve a full term if elected and that he had no plans to return to private practice. Mr. Hagood also testified that his responsibilities to his wife and two young children would not limit his service on the bench.

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Hagood 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. Hagood has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Mr. Hagood has worked in the public sector since 1990 and was a Marine Corps JAG officer after graduation from law school. He is also active in his church and Habitat for Humanity.

9. Ethics:

Mr. Hagood 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.

Mr. Hagood testified that he has spent $175.67 on his campaign and has filed reports of such expenditures with the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

10. Miscellaneous:

The Joint Committee did not receive any complaints or statements in opposition to Mr. Hagood's election.

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Judge Hearn was screened on February 1, 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:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Judge Hearn's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Judge Hearn demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. On the issue of ex parte communications, Judge Hearn stated that while she does not like to engage in ex parte communications, there are in the family law context situations that require the signing of ex parte orders. She indicated that she prefers to have an emergency hearing rather than sign an ex parte order.

On the issue of recusal, Judge Hearn stated that if a lawyer or litigant felt that she could not be fair she would recuse herself. She also testified that she does not accept gifts from lawyers and will typically not have lunch with lawyers except for her husband or close friends who do not have cases before her.

One of Judge Hearn's letters of reference was from a member of the family court bench. The Joint Committee does not feel that Judge Hearn's conduct was improper in this instance, but cautions future candidates that this situation might violate the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

The input the Joint Committee received from its survey and from the Bar indicated that Judge Hearn is intelligent and scholarly. She has taught numerous continuing legal education courses for both attorneys and judges. Several of these courses have focused on appellate practice and brief writing.

Judge Hearn testified that since her first year in practice she has read every published appellate court decision, dictated notes on each of them, and stored them in a computer which serves as her library of legal decisions.

Judge Hearn's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was a 2.1 out of a possible 4 points. Judge Hearn demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the standards of appellate review, amicus briefs, the procedure for filing an appeal, writs of certiorari, and the admissibility of a prior conviction. She was less familiar with what types of matters may not be referred to the Court of Appeals, writs of supersedeas, the use of expert testimony, and en banc hearings.

3. Professional Experience:

Judge Hearn's appellate experience and her previous service as a law clerk to the Honorable J.B. Ness and as a family court judge has prepared her to serve on the Court of Appeals. Judge Hearn has served on the family court since 1986. She was an associate and then partner from 1979 to 1986 with the firm of Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn, & Hearn. Her work with the firm involved general civil trial litigation and an active appellate practice. Judge Hearn testified that her appellate practice included the appeal of domestic matters, civil cases such as contract disputes and tort actions, and criminal convictions. From 1977 to 1979 she was law clerk to the Honorable J.B. Ness and gained valuable experience working for the Supreme Court.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The input the Joint Committee received from its surveys and from the Bar indicate that Judge Hearn's temperament is excellent.

She has been the subject of three letters to Judicial Standards, two of which involved issues of temperament, but the Judicial Standards Commission dismissed all three inquiries. The Joint Committee likewise did not find cause of concern in these matters.

Judge Hearn was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Hearn appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

7. Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hearn has managed her financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Judge Hearn is an active member of a number of committees dealing with criminal justice, domestic violence in the family court system, court automation, the University of South Carolina Law School Partnership Board, and the American Law Institute's Children Code Committee.

9. Ethics:

Judge Hearn testified that 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 pending the outcome of screening;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening; or
(d) used her judicial letterhead or the services of her staff to campaign.

Judge Hearn also testified that she understood the new Joint Committee rule requiring her to wait forty-eight hours after the draft report is released before she may begin seeking commitments.

10. Miscellaneous:

The Joint Committee did not receive any complaints or statements in opposition to Judge Hearn's election.

| Printed Page 870, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 890, Mar. 14 |

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:12 P.M.