Printed Page 500, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 520, Feb. 6
|
Printed Page 500, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 520, Feb. 6
| Ms. Johnson meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Johnson qualified. The Bar reported that Ms. Johnson "was very nice, courteous, and concerned about her clients. She is professional; however, she can be firm in her position. She was thought to have a good temperament, as well as being honest. Ms. Johnson was thought to be intelligent and apparently prepares her cases well. There were comments that she was a worthy opponent and knew the domestic relations law. Her practice has been limited to providing legal services through Legal Services Association of Western Carolina. This was not thought to hinder her from being qualified for a Family Court judgeship. She teaches a law course at Central Wesleyan where she is highly regarded.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Judge Bartlett was screened on December 19, 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.
Judge Bartlett demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Bartlett is on the general faculty at the National Judicial College where he has lectured on evidence, criminal procedure, constitutional law, and domestic violence. He has also lectured for the S.C. Court Administration (evidence), S.C. Criminal Justice Academy (magistrate certification), South Carolina Bar (D.U.I. seminars), South Carolina Justice Institute (evidence), and Greenville Technical College (criminal law, criminal procedure, juvenile justice). He has also been invited to lecture at various seminars on Domestic Violence, including seminars sponsored by the Greenville Hospital System and Sistercare.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Bartlett graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1977 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
After Judge Bartlett was admitted to the Bar, he served from 1977 to 1978, as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Greenville. He served as Assistant Circuit Solicitor from 1978 to 1980. Since 1980, Judge Bartlett has been the Chief Judge of the Municipal Court for the City of Greenville.
As a current judge, Judge Bartlett omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years. Judge Bartlett reports that municipal courts are not courts of record and rarely have written orders; however, he has listed and enclosed two orders issued by him which he says have "substance and that are not of a routine nature":
(1) City of Greenville v. Dan Winston Brooks. A return to the court of General Sessions upon appeal. The case was upheld by the Circuit Court. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court under rule 23.
(2) City of Greenville v. William Ezia Adams. An order which declared a city picketing ordinance to be unconstitutional.
The Joint Committee is concerned about Judge Bartlett's lack of recent experience in the family courts.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Bartlett's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Bartlett 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 Bartlett is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Bartlett appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Bartlett has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Bartlett has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Bartlett 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.
Judge Bartlett testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Bartlett testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Bartlett meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Bartlett qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Bartlett "has served continuously as a full-time municipal judge for the City of Greenville since 1980. Prior to that time, he worked for one year as an assistant city attorney and for 2 years as an assistant circuit solicitor. Judge Bartlett is regarded as having excellent judicial temperament. He is highly respected for his administrative skills in the municipal court system and for his diligence, hard work, and timeliness. His reputation for integrity and fairness is well recognized among those interviewed. Some interviewed noted his lack of family court experience but believed he would be able to adapt to the Family Court based upon his strong judicial background."
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
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 communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Brown stated that he had taught business law (about 15 years ago) and family law at the paralegal program at Greenville Technical College.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Mr. Brown has not requested a Martindale-Hubbell rating and does not know if he has one.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Brown graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1976 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his admission to the Bar, Mr. Brown worked at Legal Services in 1976 and has been in private practice since 1979.
Mr. Brown described his practice over the last five years as 5% civil, 5% criminal, and 90% domestic.
Mr. Brown provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company, 307 S.C. 230, 414 S.E.2d 177. Holding that a family court order can designate the beneficiary of life insurance proceeds notwithstanding the fact that a different recipient is named as beneficiary in the policy.
(b) Ledford v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 92-CP-23-486. Plaintiff asserted that he should not be required to give the Highway Department his social security number because it violated his religious beliefs.
(c) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543. Case which lead to statutory exception
(d) George Thomas v. Steven Ritchie Holam-Hansen. Establishing an indigent child's right to receive a trial transcript.
(e) White v. White, 283 S.C. 348, 323 S.E.2d 521. Allowing property division in an annulment proceeding.
(f) Department of Social Services v. Father and the Mother, 294 S.C. 518, 366 S.E.2d 40 (Ct. App. 1988). Establishing the fact that skin is an organ which was damaged by bruising and that such an act may be abuse.
Mr. Brown has handled the following domestic appeals:
(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company, 414 S.E.2d 177, 307 S.C. 230.
(b) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543.
(c) White v. White, 283 S.C. 348, 323 S.E.2d 521.
(d) Fridy v. Fridy, appeal currently pending in the Court of Appeals.
(e) Frye v. Frye, Court of Appeals Op. No. 2217 (Filed August 15, 1994).
(f) Department of Social Services v. Whitworth, Op. No. 93-UP-130 (filed April 28, 1993).
At the Joint Committee's request, Mr. Brown supplied a number of additional cases which he felt were representative of his domestic practice. Mr. Brown's response was incorporated into the transcript of his public hearing and can be referenced there.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Brown had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Brown's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Brown 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. Brown is married and has two children.
Mr. Brown 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. Brown has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Brown was an E-5 in the United States Marines Corps Reserves. He was honorably discharged.
Mr. Brown is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Brown 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. Brown testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Brown testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Brown meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Brown qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Brown "has had extensive and broad experience in Family Court. He possesses a strong working knowledge of the law of Family Court. The majority of those interviewed felt that he is a good worker and well prepared in court and that he would have a good judicial temperament. Mr. Brown is perceived as having a good character, integrity, and reputation. Those interviewed believed that he would be a fair and impartial member of the judiciary."
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Mr. Gaddy was screened on December 18, 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.
Mr. Gaddy demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Gaddy currently serves as a director of the Bank of Traveler's Rest. He was first appointed in 1974 and has served continuously since.
Mr. Gaddy was sued for malpractice with respect to his services in Connolley v. Peoples Life. The case was dismissed because the Statute of Limitations had run.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Gaddy taught Business Law for the 1988-89 school year at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg.
Mr. Gaddy conducted a one day seminar at Greenville Technical College around 1978 on the use of micro-computers in the law office.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Gaddy to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Gaddy's Martindale-Hubbell rating is B.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Gaddy graduated from the Harvard University Law School in 1955 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Gaddy has served on active duty in the United States Navy from 1955 to 1960, practiced law with the law firm of Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason in Greenville, South Carolina from 1960 to 1966 (his practice was about equally divided between real estate and negligence defense). Practiced law with D. Denby Davenport, Jr. using the firm name of Gaddy and Davenport from 1966 to 1984. His practice was focused upon construction law, business law,
Mr. Gaddy described his practice over the past five years as 67% civil and 33% domestic.
Mr. Gaddy provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Connelly v. Peoples Life Insurance Company, 299 S.C. 348, 384 S. E. 2d 738 (1989). This case involved the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practice Act.
(b) Thompson v. Thompson, a Charleston County Family Court case in which Mr. Gaddy represented the Wife in a divorce and property division action.
(c) Merritt v. Merritt, a Greenville County Family Court case in which Mr. Gaddy represented the Wife. While represented by another attorney, Wife was involved in a divorce and custody fight with her Husband. Two years later, Husband sought child support from the Wife. Family Court awarded child support to be paid by the Wife. Wife appealed on the ground that Family Court did not consider all the evidence applicable to the situation. Case reversed and remanded to Family Court for a new trial.
(d) Builderway v. Perry, et al. Mr. Gaddy represented Builderway, a judgment creditor of the defendant Perry, in a mortgage foreclosure suit.
(e) Hartsell v. Hartsell. Mr. Gaddy represented the Wife in a divorce and property division case.
Mr. Gaddy stated that he has handled only one domestic appeal. Teresa G. Merritt v. Frank Wayne Merritt, Supreme Court 1990.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Gaddy had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Court.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Gaddy's temperament would be excellent.
Mr. Gaddy 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. Gaddy is divorced and has one child.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Gaddy 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. Gaddy has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Gaddy was on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1956 until June 1960. He was discharged as a Lieutenant, USNR. His release or discharge was under Honorable Conditions. Mr. Gaddy received accelerated promotion while serving on active duty.
Mr. Gaddy is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Gaddy 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. Gaddy testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Gaddy testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Gaddy meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Gaddy qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Gaddy "has been a practicing attorney with a concentration in business law, real estate, and domestic relations. Mr. Gaddy has a good reputation for intelligence, integrity, and diligence. Interviews were mixed with some
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Ms. Davis was screened on December 18, 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.
Ms. Davis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Ms. Davis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Davis has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Davis graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1985 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Ms. Davis served as a law clerk for the Honorable Robert L. McFadden from 1985 to 1986, as an assistant solicitor for the 13th Judicial Circuit from 1986 to 1987, as a staff attorney for Michelin Tire from 1987 to 1989, and as Chief State Attorney for the Office of Child Support Enforcement from 1990 to the present.
Ms. Davis described her practice over the past five years as 100% domestic.
Ms. Davis provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which he/she described as follows:
(a) South Carolina D.S.S. v. Brooks, 91-DR-23-4127. Paternity trial with expert testimony on paternity testing.
Printed Page 500, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 520, Feb. 6
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:59 P.M.