NO. 4

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator COURSON.

The following was received:

Date Draft Report Issued:           Thursday, January 10, 2008
Date and Time Final Report Issued:   12:00 Noon on Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 12:00 Noon.

Dear Members of the General Assembly:

Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications. This Report is designed to assist you in determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found all candidates discussed in this Report to be qualified.

The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified means that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office and the Commission's evaluative criteria. The attached Report details each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria.

Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, January 15, 2008. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, January 15, 2008. In sum, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate's candidacy until the time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this Report, please contact the Commission office at 212-6092.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
F. G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Vice-Chairman

January 10, 2008
Members of the South Carolina General Assembly
South Carolina State House
Columbia, South Carolina

Dear Fellow Members:

This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate's contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate's behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Fall 2007 screening.

Section 2-19-70(C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (Commission). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-70(C) provides that "the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate's qualifications" (emphasis added). Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding their candidacy; please note that six members of the Commission also are legislators.

In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the 48-hour period expires following the release of the Commission's report. The Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours have expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates' qualifications.

The Commission would again like to remind members of the General Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense and must be considered when determining a candidate's fitness for judicial office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at 212-6629.

Sincerely,
F. G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Vice-Chairman

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This Report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law that went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a Report as possible.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.

The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experiences (lawyers, teachers, businessmen, bankers, and advocates for various organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a Report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these Reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's Report so warranted. Summaries of these Reports have also been included in the Commission's Report for your review.

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental health, and judicial temperament. The Commission'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 Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission 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 as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact a candidate's fitness for judicial service.

The Commission 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.

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the Canons, etc. is his or her completed and sworn questionnaire.

Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.

This Report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities 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 it will help you make a more informed decision.

This Report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court, and Administrative Law Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Few meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Few was born in 1963. He is 44 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Few provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Few.

One affidavit was filed in opposition to Judge Few's candidacy by Complainant Glen F. Laconey. The complaint arose out of an action in which Judge Few was assigned as a Special Referee by the Supreme Court, Roberts v. LaConey, ___ S.C. ___, 650 S.E.2d 474 (Sept. 4, 2007). The petitioner filed the case in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, alleging that Mr. LaConey was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Mr. LaConey was attempting to collect on a judgment awarded to another individual that Mr. LaConey asserts was assigned to him. Judge Few found that the judgment had not been assigned to Mr. LaConey, but that he was acting on behalf of the original judgment holder and attempting to collect a debt and concluded that Mr. LaConey had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The Supreme Court adopted Judge Few's report.

In his affidavit, Mr. LaConey states that the petition filed in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was a "fraudulent conveyance" by the petitoner and the amicus curiae intended to hinder, delay, and defraud Mr. LaConey. He believes that Judge Few has conspired with the petitioner and the amicus curiae because he knew of Mr. LaConey's allegations that the petitioner and the amicus curiae were hindering, delaying, and defrauding Mr. LaConey. Mr. LaConey next states that Judge Few "was one-sided" in his report and did not address any authority for Mr. LaConey's position. Mr. LaConey further states that the petitioner abandoned the case because he did not serve interrogatories on Mr. LaConey but relied upon an amicus curiae to serve interrogatories, and that Judge Few allowed the amicus curiae to take over the case. Next, Mr. LaConey states that Judge Few scheduled the hearing at a place where Mr. LaConey could not appear because he was indigent.

The Commission found Mr. LaConey's complaint without merit and did not give it consideration during its evaluation of Judge Few. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission noted that the Supreme Court adopted Judge Few's report and the Commission found that Judge Few handled the case appropriately and was acting within his discretion in scheduling the time and location of the hearing.
Judge Few demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Few reported that he has made campaign expenditures for postage only.
Judge Few testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Few testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Few to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Few described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Annual Judicial Conference       08/22/02;

(b)   17th Annual Criminal Law Update     01/25/02;

(c)   Circuit Judges' Annual       05/08/02;

(d)   SC Circuit Judges'         05/07/03;

(e)   The Civil Jury in America       08/07/03;

(f)   Judicial Conference         08/07/03;

(g)   Judicial Conference         08/19/04;

(h)   19th Annual Criminal Law Update     01/23/04;

(i)     SC Circuit Judges'         05/05/04;

(j)     Judicial Oath of Office       08/19/04;

(k)   Annual SC Solicitors'       09/26/04;

(l)     20th Annual Criminal Law Update     01/21/05;

(m)   Circuit Court Judges         05/11/05;

(n)   Annual Judicial Conference       08/24/05;

(o)   SCDTAA Annual Meeting       11/03/05;

(p)   Advanced Evidence         09/25/05;

(q)   Teaching Evidence         11/14/05;

(r)   Fourth Annual Civil Law Update       01/27/06;

(s)   21st Annual Criminal Law Update       01/27/06;

(t)     20th Circuit Court Judges'       05/10/06;

(u)   SCCA Judicial Conference       08/23/06;

(v)   22nd Annual Criminal Law Update     01/26/07;

(w)   5th Annual Civil Law Update       01/26/07;

(x)   Circuit Court Judges'       05/16/07;

(y)   SCCA Judicial Conference         08/22/07."
Judge Few reported that he has taught the following continuing legal or judicial education programs:

"I have done a good bit of teaching and lecturing at continuing legal education classes since I began practicing law, and I continued doing that after I became a judge. I have spoken at the annual Greenville Bar Association December CLE program almost every year since I became a judge. I have spoken at numerous South Carolina Bar programs as well. An addition, I am a member of the faculty at the National Judicial College, where I taught a class on evidence to other judges in September 2005, and in August 2007. I have spoken on at least four occasions to the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association, twice at their summer meeting at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, and twice at their annual meeting, which is held in a different location each year."
Judge Few reported that he has not published any books and/or articles "since I became a judge in 2000."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Few did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Few did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Few has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Few was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Few reported that prior to his election to the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Few appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Few appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Few was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   1989-1997   Private Practice, in partnership with my father, J. Kendall Few;

(b)   1997-2000   Private Practice."
Judge Few reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   At least once a month;

(b)   State:     At least once a month."
Judge Few reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     100%;

(b)   Criminal:   0%;

(c)   Domestic:   0% (I was appointed in 2 or 3 domestic cases over 11 years)."
Judge Few reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     90%;

(b)   Non-jury:   10%."
Judge Few provided that prior to election to the bench the types of cases he handled while practicing law usually called for more than one lawyer. He almost always served as either chief or associate counsel.

The following is Judge Few's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Bagwell v. Nissan, US District Court, District of South Carolina.

This case is significant because I was able to play a major role in enabling a severely disabled quadriplegic, who was otherwise unable to provide for himself financially, to have his basic needs met for the rest of his life;

(b)   Shockley v. Hoechst Celanese, 793 F.Supp. 670 (D.S.C. 1992).

This case is significant because an Order I wrote at the request of the district judge was published in the Federal Supplement, and has played a significant role in the development of the law of environmental contamination;

(c)   Roshto v. Spartanburg Petroleum, This Laurens County case was significant in that my co-counsel and I were able to get a settlement for a hotel (the old Holiday Inn at SC 56 and I-26) owner and operator that enabled the business to stay in operation despite the unwillingness of banks to finance the business because of groundwater contamination on the property caused by a gas station on adjoining property;

(d)   Shook v. Golden Rule, 1993 WL 18754 (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 1993).

This case against a medical insurance provider is significant in that my co-counsel and I were able to get medical insurance payments immediately made for a severely disabled accident victim whose insurance had been denied in violation of the terms of the policy;

(e)   Cameron v. General Motors Corp., 158 F.R.D. 581 (1994).

This case is significant because of the fact that the U.S. District Judge who presided over it was essentially disqualified by the Fourth Circuit, and the case was transferred to a District Judge from West Virginia. The legal issues were substantial, and eventually involved litigation in West Virginia and Detroit Michigan, in addition to South Carolina."

The following is Judge Few's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Shockley v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 996 F.2d 1212 (4th Cir. 1993). I wrote the brief in this case, but did not personally argue the appeal;

(b)   Ehlies v. Shirley, 2000-UP-250;

(c)   Phillips v. Southland Life Insurance Co., This was the first case I ever tried, and the first appeal I ever argued. I don't have the case number of the unpublished opinion. I lost both the trial and the appeal;

(d)   Clark v. Greenville County, 313 S.C. 205, 437 S.E.2d 117 (1993). I don't think I actually argued this appeal, but I wrote or substantially wrote the briefs;

(e)   Kelly v. Para-Chem Southern, Inc., 311 S.C. 223, 428 S.E.2d 703 (1993)."

Judge Few reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Few reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"I have served as a Circuit Judge since July 1, 2000"

Judge Few provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Dissenting opinion in South Carolina State Ports Authority v. Jasper County, 368 S.C. 388, 629 S.E.2d 624 (2006). I was sitting as an Acting Justice by designation;

(b)   Foothills Brewing Concern, Inc., et. al. v. City of Greenville, 06-CP-23-7803 (Order dated March 8, 2007);

(c)   Dabbs v. Davis, 01-CP-23-7629 (Order dated March 1, 2004);

(d)   Sloan v. Greenville County, 99-CP-23-3022 (Order dated May 7, 2001), 99-CP-23-5004 (Order dated May 7, 2001), 00-CP-23-5354 (Order dated September 14, 2001), aff'd 356 S.C. 531, 590 S.E.2d 338 (Ct. App. 2003);

(e)   Pitts v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., 352 S.C. 319, 574 S.E.2d 502 (Ct. App. 2002)."

Judge Few reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge:

"I have reached a tentative agreement to teach a class at the Charleston School of Law for per diem and a salary."

Judge Few further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy: "I was an unsuccessful candidate for the Supreme Court, Seat 5 in 2007."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Few's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Few "to be a most competent and excellent jurist." They further found that "his qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Few is not married. He has three children.
Judge Few reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Greenville County Bar."
Judge Few provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"I serve on the Duke University Alumni Advisory Committee for the upstate. All I do in that capacity is to interview high school seniors who have applied to Duke. I also serve in the unofficial role of President of the Duke Club of the Upstate, which specifically does not involve any fundraising whatsoever. I am simply a contact person for Duke alumni who live in this area."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Few is a very fair and studious judge with strong intellect which would serve him well on the Supreme Court. They noted he has ably served as a Circuit Court judge for the past seven years. They further noted that Judge Few is known for his thorough preparation in advance of hearings.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Few qualified and nominated him for election to the Supreme Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Goodstein meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Goodstein was born in 1955. She is 52 years old and a resident of Summerville, South Carolina. Judge Goodstein provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Goodstein.
Judge Goodstein demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Goodstein reported that she has made a campaign expenditure for gas which is not required to be reported.
Judge Goodstein testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Goodstein testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Goodstein to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Goodstein described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"Conference/CLE Name                     Date(s)

(a)   2002 SC Bar 17th Annual Criminal Law Update     2002;

(b)   Scientific Evidence and Experts     2002;

(c)   Handling Capital Cases     2002;

(d)   2003 18th Annual Criminal Law Update     1/24/03;

(e)   Civil Law Update     1/24/03;

(f)   Circuit Judges Conference   5/05/03;

(g)   Annual Judicial Conference           8/03;

(h)   2004 Conference SC Women Lawyers     4/30/04;

(i)     19th Annual Criminal Law Update     1/23/04;

(j)     2nd Annual Civil Law Update     1/23/04;

(k)   SC Circuit Judges Conference     5/05/04;

(l)     Annual Judicial Conference     8/19/04;

(m)   Judicial Oath of Office     8/19/04;

(n)   Advanced Evidence     11/15-           18/04;

(o)   2005 Circuit Judges Conference     5/11-   13/05;

(p)   Annual Judicial Conference       8/05;

(q)   2006 Fourth Annual Civil Law Update     1/27/06;

(r)   21st Annual Criminal Law Update     1/27/06;

(s)   Circuit Court Judicial Conference       5/06;

(t)     Handling Capital Cases     6/10/06;

(u)   2006 Annual Judicial Conference     8/23/06;

(v)   SC Judges and Journalist     9/28/06;

(w)   2007 Fifth Annual Civil Law Update     1/26/06;

(x)   22nd Annual Criminal Law Update     1/26/07;

(y)   Circuit Judges Conference     5/07;

(z)   Annual Judicial Conference     8/07."

Judge Goodstein reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"Conference/CLE Name                                 Date(s)

(a)   SCCA Orientation School for New Judges

Presentation entitled Running of a Court               2002;

(b)   SCCA Orientation School for New Judges

Presentation entitled Running of a Court               2003;

(c)   SCCA Magistrates Intensive Training

Presentation entitled General Courtroom Protocol,

Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Charging the jury         2003;

(d)   Group Leader National Judicial College

Course Advanced Evidence                       2004;

(e)   Panel Participation Women Lawyers Conference   4/30/04;

(f)     SCCA Orientation School for New Judges

Presentation entitled Running of a Court               2004;

(g)   SCCA Orientation School for New Judges

Presentation Running of a Court                   7/11/05;

(h)   Part of a panel discussion for Young Lawyers Division

Of the SC Bar Association                       1/28/06;

(i)     Speaker SC Women Lawyers topic Ladder to Success

10/13/06;

(j)   Speaker at Worker's Compensation Convention

Topic Ethical Considerations in Worker's Compensation

Appeals                                       2006;

(k)   Instruction Magistrates' School Presentation Running

Of the Court                                   3/28/07;

(l)   Part of a panel discussion Jewish Historical Society   4/28/07;

(m)   Supreme Court Institute                       6/19/07;

(n)   New Judges School                           7/07;

(o)   New Magistrates School                       8/3/07;

(p)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association

I lectured on Collateral Source Rule;

(q)   SC Defense Lawyers Association

On a Panel;

(r)   Women in Law Conference

Member of a Panel;

(s)   SC Bar Association Young Lawyers Division

Member of a Panel                               2005;

(t)   Converse College

I am speaking at their "Honor Day" Ceremonies     10/9/07;

(u)   South Carolina - North Carolina Bar Associations

Conference on Women in the Profession

Member of a Panel                           10/18/07."

Judge Goodstein reported that she has published the following:

"(a)   I have written materials for the Orientation School for New Circuit Court Judges on the subject of 'Running for a Court'. However, they have not been published other than for use at the seminars;

(b)   Credibility and Character Evidence History Policy and Procedure

Editorial Board Member 2003."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Goodstein did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Goodstein did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Goodstein has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Goodstein was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Goodstein reported that prior to her election to the bench her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Goodstein reported that she has held the following public office:

"Other than judicial office I have not held public office. I was County attorney for Dorchester County but I do not now think that was a public office."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Goodstein appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Goodstein appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Goodstein was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1981.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I began practice as an Associate with the firm of Goodstein, Bowling, Douglas & Phillips from 1981 through 1983. I became a partner in Goodstein & Goodstein, PA, from 1983 through 1998. After my election to the bench in 1998, and days before I concluded my practice, my law firm merged with the firm of Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, creating Rosen, Goodstein & Hagood. My husband continued to practice with that firm until the end of 2000.

My private practice was always a general one. However, it progressed from one which primarily was associated with the representation of Plaintiffs to one which represented both Plaintiffs and Defendants. In the later years, I practiced more often in the public sector, serving as Dorchester County Attorney, as General Counsel for the Charleston County Aviation Authority and as counsel for Dorchester County School District Number Two. I prosecuted cases for the Charleston County Aviation Authority Police Department. In 1997, Goodstein & Goodstein began to represent the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund in cases arising in Charleston and Dorchester Counties. After sixteen years, my law practice had expanded into numerous areas of the private and public sector representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants."
Judge Goodstein reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   An average of every six months;

(b)   State:     An average of every two months;

(c)   Other:     Family: An average of four times monthly."
Judge Goodstein reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       50%;

(b)   Criminal:     10%;

(c)   Domestic:   40%."
Judge Goodstein reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       30%;

(b)   Non-jury:   70 %."
Judge Goodstein provided that prior to her election to the bench she most often served as chief counsel.

The following is Judge Goodstein's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State of South Carolina v. Sammy Lee Amaker, Case Number 85-GS-18-167. This was a high profile death penalty case in which I was associate counsel. My law partner was appointed to represent the Defendant. This matter was significant because of the requisite effort required to defend an individual under the pressures of a potential penalty of death;

(b)   Kelly Snowden v. William Fend, Case Number 88-CP-18-53. Our clients' young child had been molested by a neighbor and this civil action in Common Pleas Court was brought to recover damages from the perpetrator. The case was a means for the child's parents to express their outrage. It was significant for two reasons. The victimized child was needed to testify which required great care to procure her testimony without doing her harm. It is also significant because of the amount of the verdict which was $1,350,000.00;

(c)   Julian W. Rawl, as Administrator of the Estate of Edwin E. Rawl, Jr. v. United States of America, C.A. No. 2:80-2525-2. This matter was litigated non-jury in Federal Court and was a case brought by Julian Rawl whose parents were killed when his father's aircraft crashed. The case is significant because of the complexity of the issues involved. The Plainfiff alleged negligence on the part of the air traffic controller. This matter was defended by U.S. Justice Department, Civil Division, with lead counsel from Washington;

(d)   Tideland Utilities, Inc. and Earl J. DuPriest v. Sunnox, Inc and Prillaman Chemical Co., Case Number 90-CP-18-846. This case involved a suit for damages resulting from the explosion of a chlorine canister in the Plaintiff's warehouse. A related case was filed (Tideland Utilities, Inc. and Earl J. DuPriest v. Bitimious Corporation) against the Plaintiff's liability carrier for wrongful failure to pay an insurance claim and breach of the insurance contract. The case was significant because this single event generated both a products liability action which was fairly complicated and the additional suit highlighting contractual issues with the Plaintiff's insurance carrier;

(e)   State of South Carolina v. Pearless Owens. In this criminal matter, I was co-counsel in a murder trial which tried to conclusion once resulting in a mistrial because of the jury's inability to reach a verdict; mistried a second time due to prosecutorial error; mistried due to a critical witness's emotional breakdown during the third trial and ended in a workable plea just prior to the fourth trial. The case was significant because it was extremely challenging to continue to work with the case so that the defense remained proficient and vibrant and did not become stale. It was also significant because the decedent was a family member which complicated the normally difficult issues in such a case."

The following is Judge Goodstein's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Gamble, Givens and Moody v. Moise, 288 S.C. 210, 341 S.E.2d 147, 1986;

(b)   Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121, (4th Cir.) 1986;

(c)   Rawl v. United States, 778 F.2d 1009, (4th Cir.) 1985;

(d)   Turner v. City of North Charleston, 675 F.Supp. 314 (DCSC 1987);

(e)   Turner v. City of North Charleston, 675 F.Supp. 314 (DCSC 1987)."

The following is Judge Goodstein's account of a criminal appeal she has personally handled:

"While I was involved in numerous criminal matters; in the role of prosecutor for the Charleston County Aviation Authority police department and privately as defense counsel there failed to be negative results which would necessitate an appeal. The exception to this was the matter of State v. Amaker which was a Capital Case in which I was involved as associate counsel and the jury mistried on the sentence to be imposed; therefore the Court imposed a sentence of life. The appeal for this case was handled by Indigent defense and the conviction and sentence were affirmed."

Judge Goodstein reported that she has held the following judicial office:

"I was elected as a Resident Judge, First Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, on May 6, 1998 for the term July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2004. I was re-elected Feb 2004 and am currently serving my second term. Limitations on jurisdiction include only those matters for which exclusive jurisdiction lies in the family court and of course those matters in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Circuit Court is best described as a court of general jurisdiction."

Judge Goodstein provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   State v. Marion Bowman, 366 S.C. 485, 623 SE2d 378: This was a death penalty case for which many pre-trial orders were issued, the most significant being the order to suppress defendants confession.   This matter was affirmed;

(b)   Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 355 SC 437, 586 SE2d 124;

(c)   Mary Louise Fairy v. Exxon, Case No: 94-CP-37-118, order denying motion to reconsider and other relief;

(d)   Simmons v. City of Charleston, 562 SE2d 476;

(e)   Margaret Sherkh as personal representative of the estate of Asif Sherkh, deceased v. Lexington Medical Center, Case No: 2003-CP-32-0675."

Judge Goodstein reported the following regarding her employment while serving as a judge:

"I have not been employed other than my judicial office since my election in 1998 except I consult often with my husband regarding our family business and I am on the board of directors of our family business."

Judge Goodstein further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"I have been an unsuccessful candidate for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat 5 which was elected in the Spring of 2007."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Goodstein's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Goodstein to be a "very eminently qualified and a most highly regarded candidate, who would honorably serve on the Supreme Court bench."
Judge Goodstein is married to Arnold Samuel Goldstein. She has two children.
Judge Goodstein reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   American Bar Association;

(c)   Dorchester County Bar Association;

(d)   Circuit Judges Association;

(e)   Women in Law Association."
Judge Goodstein provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Judicial Standards Committee Member;

(b)   Summerville Debutante Club;

(c)   Circuit Judges Advisory Committee Member."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Judge Goodstein's compassion as she is truly concerned for the litigants and lawyers who come before her in the courtroom. They noted her love for the law and her willingness to study and continue learning the law. They further noted she routinely handles complex cases that are brought before the Circuit Court Bench.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Goodstein qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Supreme Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hearn meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Hearn was born in 1950. She is 57 years old and a resident of Conway, South Carolina. Judge Hearn provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hearn.

Two affidavits were filed in opposition to Judge Hearn's candidacy. One of the filed affidavits was by Mr. Marion Driggers. This was substantially the same complaint that was filed by Mr. Driggers in the Spring 2007 screening. The Commission did not receive additional testimony from Mr. Driggers on this issue after having previously found that Mr. Driggers' complaint had no merit and that he was attempting to re-litigate a matter in which he was dissatisfied with the result.

The second affidavit was filed by Ms. Jara Gobbi. The affidavit related to Judge Hearn's testimony in response to an affidavit filed by Ms. Gobbi against Judge Hearn during the Spring 2007 screening. Ms. Gobbi's initial complaint alleged that Judge Hearn had shown the appearance of impropriety by her social relationship with a member of the bar, Richard Lovelace. Ms. Gobbi's current affidavit alleges that Judge Hearn gave false testimony before the Commission during the April 2007 screening. Ms. Gobbi's affidavit quotes Judge Hearn's testimony from the transcript where Judge Hearn testified "I haven't even sat on a panel involving her case. In fact, because she has so many cases at the Court of Appeals, we impaneled her own special panel to deal with all of her litigation, and I'm not - I have never been on that panel." Ms. Gobbi alleged that Judge Hearn's testimony is false and as evidence provides a copy of a January 12, 2007 Order from the Court of Appeals signed by Judge Hearn where Ms. Gobbi is listed as the Appellant. The Order from the Court of Appeals denied Ms. Gobbi's request for a rehearing on an issue from which she had previously been denied relief. Judge Hearn was one of three justices to execute the Order.

Judge Hearn thoroughly responded to the allegations of Ms. Gobbi's complaint. Judge Hearn noted that her testimony before the Commission in April 2007 primarily related to her disqualification in cases involving Richard Lovelace and that Richard Lovelace was not involved in the case involving the Order which Ms. Gobbi includes with her affidavit. Judge Hearn also noted that the Order in question related to an intermediate, routine order in an ongoing appeal that has not yet reached the merits of the case. Additionally, Judge Hearn noted the volume of such orders that come before the Court of Appeals. She also explained her primary responsibility, as Chief Judge, for handling such orders as well as the large volume of cases that Ms. Gobbi has before the Court of Appeals. According to information provided by Ken Richstad, the clerk of court, Ms. Gobbi has been the appellant in approximately 39 appeals since the year 2000.
Judge Hearn demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Hearn reported she has made the following campaign expenditures: "None, other than money spent on postage for letters to the General Assembly concerning my candidacy, which was no more than one hundred dollars."
Judge Hearn testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Hearn testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Hearn to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hearn described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2003

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap) - 3-10-03;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-03;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-03;

Family Court Bench Bar - 12-5-03.
2004

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap) - 3-8-04;

Using Electronic Evidence in Civil Litigation - 7-15-04;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-04;

Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners - 9-24-04;

Wofford and the Law - 9-25-04;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-04;

South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar - 12-3-04.
2005

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap) - 3-7-05;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-06;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-05;

South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar - 12-12-05.
2006

Trial and Appellate Advocacy - 1-28-06;

Appellate Issues (Bridge the Gap) - 3-6-06;

S.C. Family Court Summit - 7-06;

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-06;

National Council of Chief Judges' Conference - 11-06;

AutoTorts - 12-2-06.
2007

South Carolina Judicial Conference - 8-07."
Judge Hearn reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Hearsay Rule in the Family Court, Columbia, S.C., July 21, 1979;

(b)   Order Writing for Circuit Judges, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 1979;

(c)   Order Writing for Family Court Judges, Columbia, S.C., Nov. 16, 1979;

(d)   Moderator, Organizer, and Presenter at People's Law School, Horry Georgetown Tech, 1980-1984;

(e)   Appellate Court Writs, Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1980;

(f)   Order Writing for Law Clerks, Columbia, S.C. Aug. 1980;

(g)   Order Writing for Law Clerks and Staff Attorneys, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 1981;

(h)   Rules and Procedures of the Family Court, S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention,   Hilton Head, S.C., Aug. 20, 1981;

(i)     Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Greenville, S.C., Apr. 2, 1982;

(j)     Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Charleston, S.C., May 1982;

(k)   Appellate Advocacy Brief Writing, Florence, S.C., June 25, 1982;

(l)     Appellate Advocacy Preservation of the Record, Columbia, S.C., July 15, 1983;

(m)   Opinion Writing for Appellate Judges, Columbia, S.C., Oct. 1983;

(n)   Separation and Antenuptial Agreements, Columbia, S.C., Oct. 12, 1984;

(o)   Effective Order Writing, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 6-7, 1984;

(p)   Order Writing, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., Feb. 28, 1985;

(q)   Order Writing, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., Mar. 1985;

(r)   Order Writing, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., August 1985;

(s)   Complex Issues in Family Court, Statutory Update, and Alimony   Perspective - Co-Moderator, Columbia, S.C., Nov. 19-20, 1987;

(t)     Practical Problems in Legal Ethics, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 1987;

(u)   Order Writing, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., July 21-22, 1988;

(v)   Children's Rights, SCDSS Family Violence Conference, Columbia, S.C., Mar. 19-20, 1990;

(w)   Judge's Perspective on Adoption, Columbia, S.C., April 6, 1990;

(x)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 1990;

(y)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 1991;

(z)   The Future of Families in the Courts, Greenville, S.C., Apr. 4, 1991;

(aa)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 1991;

(bb)   Order Writing, New Alimony Statute, Abuse and Neglect, and Contempt - Moderator, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 27-   28, 1991;

(cc)   Domestic Violence, Magistrate's JCLE, Columbia, S.C., November 8, 1991;

(dd)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, SC, March 1992;

(ee)   Adoption, Abuse and Neglect - Moderator, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., July 28, 1992;

(ff)   Separation Agreements, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 1992;

(gg)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., May 17, 1993;

(hh)   The Future of Family Court, S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention, Hilton Head, S.C., Aug. 18, 1993;

(ii)   Suppression Hearings in Family Court, Solicitors' Conference, Myrtle Beach, S.C., Oct. 4, 1993;

(jj)   How the Family Court is Using ADR and Mediation in the Courtroom, S.C. Bar Mid-Winter Meeting, Charleston, S.C., Jan. 21, 1994;

(kk)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., February 28, 1994;

(ll)   Juvenile Delinquency, Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, S.C., June 24, 1994;

(mm)   Family Court Rules, Columbia, S.C., July 29, 1994;

(nn)   Waiver Hearings, Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 19, 1994;

(oo)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 6, 1995;

(pp)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., May 16, 1995;

(qq)   The Hot Evidentiary Issues Under the New Rules, The Judicial   Conference, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 24, 1995;

(rr)   Judicial Perspective on Briefs and Oral Arguments, Ethical Issues Facing Family Law Practitioners, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 19, 1995;

(ss)   Domestic Relations, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 5, 1996;

(tt)   The Future of Appellate Courts, Seminar for New Appellate Court Judges, Columbia, S.C., May 1, 1996;

(uu)   Preserving the Trial Record, Circuit Court Judges Seminar, Fripp Island, S.C., May 1996;

(vv)   Preserving the Trial Record, The Judicial Conference, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 22, 1996;

(ww)   Ethics: A View from the Bench, S.C. Public Defenders' Conference, North Myrtle Beach, S.C., Sept. 30, 1996;

(xx)   A View from the Bench, Ethics for Family Law Practitioners, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 10, 1996;

(yy)   Appellate Writs and Motions Practice, S.C. Bar Mid-Winter Meeting, Charleston, S.C., Jan. 25, 1997;

(zz)   Family Law Update, The Judicial Conference, Columbia, S.C., Aug. 22, 1997;

(aaa)   Perspectives on Judging, S.C. Student Trial Lawyers Association,   Columbia, S.C., Oct. 1, 1997;

(bbb)   The Rules of Evidence and The Dead Man's Statute, S.C. Probate Judges Conference, Myrtle Beach, S.C., Oct. 13, 1997;

(ccc)   Automatic Stay and Petitions for Supersedeas, Family Court Seminar, Conway, S.C., Oct. 21, 1997;

(ddd)   Appellate Ethics Update, Ethics Seminar, Columbia, S.C., Nov. 14, 1997;

(eee)   Order Writing, Probate Judges Conference, Columbia, S.C., Feb. 26, 1998;

(fff)   Important Rules of Appellate Practice, S.C. Practice and Procedure Update, Columbia, S.C., March 20, 1998;

(ggg)   Comparative Negligence Developments, S.C. Tort Law Update, Columbia, S.C., Sept. 25, 1998;

(hhh)   Preserving Evidentiary Matters on Appeal, Winning Evidence, Columbia, S.C. Feb. 19, 1999;

(iii)   Appellate Issues, Court of Appeals Bench/Bar seminar, Columbia, S.C., October 22, 1999;

(jjj)   Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., May 2000;

(kkk)   Appellate Issues, Family Court Bench/Bar seminar, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 1, 2000;

(lll)   Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 2001;

(mmm)Issues in Comparative Negligence, 2001 South Carolina Tort Law Update, Columbia, S.C., September 28, 2001;

(nnn)   Appellate Issues, Ring Out the Old, Ring In the New, Columbia, S.C., Dec. 21, 2001;

(ooo)   Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., May 15, 2002;

(ppp)   Appellate Issues, Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 6, 2002;

(qqq)   Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 10, 2003;

(rrr)   Oral Argument, South Carolina Trial Lawyers' Association Convention,   2003;

(sss)   Now we have Campbell, what do we do with it?, South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association, Sea Island, GA, Nov. 7, 2003;

(ttt)   Appellate Issues, Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 5, 2003;

(uuu)   Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 8, 2004;

(vvv)   Using Electronic Evidence in Civil Litigation, July 15, 2004;

(www)Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners, Columbia, S.C., Sept. 24, 2004;

(xxx)   Wofford and the Law, Panel Leader for Legal Symposium Spartanburg, S.C., Sept. 25, 2004;

(yyy)   Appellate Issues, South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 3, 2004;

(zzz)   Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 7, 2005;

(aaaa)   Professionalism, Forum on Professionalism at the Charleston School of Law, Charleston, S.C., Oct. 2005;

(bbbb)   Appellate Issues, S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 12, 2005;

(cccc)   Oral Arguments, S.C. Bar Convention, Jan. 28, 2006;

(dddd)   Appellate Issues, Bridge the Gap, Columbia, S.C., March 6, 2006;

(eeee)   Expediting Appeals in Dependency Cases, S.C. Family Court Summit, Columbia, S.C., July 2006;

(ffff)   Appellate Advocacy, Charleston School of Law, Visiting Adjunct Professor, Fall 2006 semester;

(gggg)   Order Writing, 14th Annual Probate Bench/Bar, Columbia, S.C., Sept. 15, 2006;

(hhhh)   Keeping Your Verdicts Without Compromising Your Ethics, SCTLA AutoTorts, Atlanta, G.A., Dec. 2, 2006;

(iiii)   Oral Argument, Family Court Bench/Bar, Conway, S.C., Dec. 7, 2006;

(jjjj)   Appellate Advocacy, Charleston School of Law, Visiting Adjunct Professor, Fall 2007 semester;

(kkkk)   Ethics, Summary Court Judges' Conference, Myrtle Beach, S.C., September 7, 2007;

(llll)   Panel on the Constitution, Wofford College, Spartanburg, S.C., September 26, 2007."
Judge Hearn reported that she has published the following:

"(a)   S.C. Appellate Practice Handbook (S.C. Bar CLE 1985), Contributing Author;

(b)   Marital Litigation in S.C., Roy T. Stuckey and F. Glenn Smith (S.C. Bar CLE 1997), Editorial Board;

(c)   South Carolina Damages, Terry E. Richardson, Jr., and Daniel S. Haltiwanger (S.C. Bar CLE 2004), authored chapter titled, 'S.C. Modified Comparative Negligence;'

(d)   The Appellate Prosecutor: A Practical and Inspirational Guide to Appellate Advocacy, Ronald H. Clark (S.C. Bar CLE 2005), authored chapter on oral argument."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Hearn did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hearn did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hearn has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Hearn was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Hearn reported that prior to her election to the bench her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Hearn appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Hearn appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Hearn was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   1977-1979:   Law clerk to the Honorable Julius B. Ness, Associate Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court;

(b)   1979-1985:   Associate and partner in firm which eventually became Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn & Hearn; located in Loris and Myrtle Beach, S.C.;

(c)   1985-1995:   Family Court Judge for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit (Chief Administrative Judge from 1987-1995);

(d)   1995-1999:   Judge, S.C. Court of Appeals;

(e)   1999-present:   Chief Judge, S.C. Court of Appeals."
Judge Hearn reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:     4-5 times per year;

(b)   State:     weekly."
Judge Hearn reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       45%;

(b)   Criminal:   10%;

(c)   Domestic:   45%."
Judge Hearn reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       40%;

(b)   Non-jury:   60%."
Judge Hearn provided that prior to her election to the bench she most often served as lead counsel.

The following is Judge Hearn's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Hellum v. Todd, (1980) (I was trial counsel in this Horry County personal injury for the plaintiff who was rendered quadriparesic as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The case is significant because a 'day-in-the-life' video was introduced for one of the first times and admitted into evidence. The jury returned a verdict of $1.75 million, and it was settled with the insurance carrier while on appeal based on the Tyger River doctrine.);

(b)   King v. Williams, 276 S.C. 478, 279 S.E.2d 618 (1981) (I was appellate counsel in this medical malpractice case wherein the Supreme Court abolished the locality rule.). This case has been cited seventy-three times in reported decisions and secondary sources;

(c)   Sweatt v. Norman, 283 S.C. 443, 322 S.E.2d 478 (Ct. App. 1984) (I was trial and appellate counsel in this case where the jury
returned a verdict of $1.5 million based upon the family purpose doctrine.);

(d)   Gasque v. Heublein, Inc., 281 S.C. 278, 315 S.E.2d 556 (1984) (I was trial and appellate counsel in this case; the Supreme Court found the two-issue rule required affirmance of jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff whose vision was impaired when a champagne cork prematurely ejected.). This case has been cited over fifty times in other reported decisions and secondary sources;

(e)   Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984) (I was trial and appellate counsel; the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's grant of plaintiff's motion for new trial nisi additur.). This case has been cited in seventy-five reported decisions and secondary sources."

The following is Judge Hearn's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   King v. Williams, 276 S.C. 478, 279 S.E.2d 618 (1981);

(b)   Gasque v. Heublein, Inc., 281 S.C. 278, 315 S.E.2d 556 (1984);

(c)   Sweatt v. Norman, 283 S.C. 443, 322 S.E.2d 478 (Ct. App. 1984);

(d)   Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984);

(e)   Todd v. S.C. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 287 S.C. 190, 336 S.E.2d 472 (1985)."

The following is Judge Hearn's account of five criminal appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   State v. Drew, 281 S.C. 440, 316 S.E.2d 367 (1984) (reversing appellants' convictions because the trial court improperly admitted evidence of other crimes);

(b)   State v. Miller, 287 S.C. 280, 337 S.E.2d 83 (1985) (affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court's grant of jnov in favor of defendant);

(c)   State v. Cox, 279 S.C. 205, 305 S.E.2d 76 (1983);

(d)   State v. David Cook, S.C. S.Ct. (unpublished);

(e)   Greene v. State, S.C. S.Ct. (unpublished)."

Judge Hearn reported that she has held the following judicial office(s):

"I was elected Family Court Judge in 1986 and served until 1995. The family court has jurisdiction over matters involving domestic relationships, such as divorce, division of marital property, custody, visitation rights, adoptions, and termination of parental rights. The family court also has jurisdiction over minors under the age of seventeen who have committed crimes, unless those crimes are serious enough for the child to be 'waived up' to General Sessions court. In 1995, I was elected to serve as a judge on the S.C. Court of Appeals, and in 1999, I was elected Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. I continue to serve in that position. The court of appeals has jurisdiction over all appeals, with the following seven exceptions (see Section 14-8-200 of the South Carolina Code):

(1)   death penalty cases;

(2)   final decisions of the Public Service Commission setting public utility rates;

(3)   challenges to the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance (unless the Supreme Court deems the constitutional question raised insignificant);

(4)   final judgments from the circuit court involving the authorization, issuance, or proposed issuance of general obligation debt, revenue, institutional, industrial, or hospital bonds of the State, its agencies, political subdivisions, public service districts, counties, and municipalities, or any other indebtedness authorized by Article X of the Constitution of this State;

(5)   judgments dealing with elections or election procedures;

(6)   orders limiting the investigation of the state grand jury; and

(7)   orders dealing with an abortion by a minor."

Judge Hearn provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Life Ins. Co., 322 S.C. 139, 470 S.E.2d 382 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1167 (1987) (holding that an employee seeking to recover benefits under ERISA was entitled to a jury trial);

(b)   Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime, 325 S.C. 507, 482 S.E.2d 569 (Ct. App. 1997) (en banc), aff'd as modified, 333 S.C. 71, 508 S.E.2d 565 (1998) (holding that assumption of risk has been subsumed by South Carolina's adoption of comparative fault);

(c)   State v. Hamilton, 327 S.C. 440, 486 S.E.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 904 (1998) (finding no error in trial judge's decision to allow the State to prove defendant had two prior burglary convictions despite defendant's willingness to stipulate to his prior convictions);

(d)   Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 344 S.C. 266, 543 S.E.2d 264 (Ct. App. 2001) (Hearn, C.J., dissenting), rev'd, 355 S.C. 316, 585 S.E.2d 272 (2003) (adopting dissent);

(e)   In re Expediting Appeals from Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings, 366 S.C. 670, 623 S.E.2d 661 (Ct. App. 2005) (recognizing the need for   stability in children's lives and implementing an expedited procedure for handling appeals from termination of parental rights proceedings, adoption proceedings, and/or DSS actions involving the custody of a minor child)."

Judge Hearn reported the following regarding her employment while serving as a judge:

"Adjunct Professor of Appellate Advocacy for the Charleston School of Law. Employed for the Fall Semester of 2006, from August through November."

Judge Hearn further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:

"In May of 2007, I unsuccessfully ran for Seat 5 on the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Judicial Merit Selection Committee nominated Donald Beatty, H. Bruce Williams, and me for the seat. The Honorable Donald W. Beatty won the election."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Hearn's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Hearn to be qualified based upon their interview with her in the Spring of 2007.
Judge Hearn is married to George M. Hearn. She has one child.
Judge Hearn reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   National Council of Chief Judges;

President, 2005-2006;

Chair, Education Committee, 2003;

Member, Executive Board, 2001-Present;

Member, Education Committee, 2000-2002;

(c)   Conference of Family Court Judges;

Treasurer, 1990;

Secretary, 1991;

President, 1992."
Judge Hearn provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:

"In 2004, I was the portrait honoree of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers' Association."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Hearn's exemplary service as the former President of the National Conference of Chief Judges brings credit to our State. They noted that she has been a successful leader and administrator as the Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals for the past eight years. They further noted her outstanding demeanor on the bench, as well as her keen intellectual ability, and further commented on the LLM she earned to strengthen her legal ability.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Hearn to be qualified and nominated her for election to the Supreme Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jefferson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Jefferson was born in 1963. She is 44 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Jefferson provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jefferson.

Six affidavits were filed in opposition to Judge Jefferson's candidacy. The complainants were: Kristi Harleston, Ernest McCrae, Claudia McCrae, Cheri L. McCrae Taylor, Douglas Taylor, and Pamela Marie Lopez. These six complaints all arose out of the case of State v. John McCrae, which Judge Jefferson heard in May of 2007. The complainants asserted that Judge Jefferson improperly conducted the trial and leniently sentenced the defendant. In the case, Mr. McCrae faced charges of lewd acts upon a minor. These acts were alleged to have taken place between 1975 and 1979. The complainants were to be called as witnesses at the trial; however, their testimony was about separate incidences that were alleged to have happened to other victims and not to the victim in the case. Before the witnesses were allowed to testify before the jury, Judge Jefferson had them testify in-camera to determine the relevancy of their testimony. At the conclusion of the in-camera testimony, the defendant decided to plead guilty to the charges, and the witnesses, who were some of the complainants, were not allowed to testify before the jury. They were upset with this procedure, and, this was one of the reasons the complainants filed statements with the Commission.

Furthermore, the complainants were upset with the sentence Judge Jefferson gave to the defendant. The law in effect in 1975 carried a maximum sentence of ten years for this crime. After the defendant pled guilty, Judge Jefferson sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, suspended to five years probation. The complainants were concerned that the defendant has not served any time in jail for this offense and that he is not being electronically monitored, which they believed was mandatory. Unfortunately, though, the complainants are mistaken about the punishment they believe the defendant should have been given. Apparently, they researched Jessica's Law as it was passed in 2005 and they think this law applies to the situation involving Mr. McCrae. However, Mr. McCrae pled guilty to actions that took place between 1975 and 1979, which is long before Jessica's Law went into effect and before electronic monitoring existed. At the hearing, Cheri McCrae-Taylor and Douglas Taylor testified on behalf of all of the complainants. They reiterated the complaints that were written in their affidavits, and they complained that based on their judgment of Judge Jefferson, they believed she was not experienced enough to serve on the Supreme Court.

Judge Jefferson thoroughly responded to the complaints, and she apologized for anything that she said during the trial that may have upset the complainants. She explained the procedure for criminal trials and in that explanation pointed out that the in-camera testimony was proper. Additionally, she noted that the law in effect at the time the crimes occurred only allowed her to sentence the defendant to ten years imprisonment, and that due to all of the circumstances, she chose to sentence the defendant as she did. Finally, Judge Jefferson noted that she is compassionate to all victims and found it unfortunate that the McCrae family did not feel that she was in this case.

At the Public Hearing, the Commission commented that they were impressed with Judge Jefferson's professionalism and poise in responding to her complainants. The Commission found the complaints had no merit.

Judge Jefferson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Jefferson reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Jefferson testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Jefferson testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Jefferson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Jefferson described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 1/25/2001;

(b)   Family Law Section Seminar                   1/26/2001;

(c)   2001 Family Court Judges Conference           5/3/2001;

(d)   2001 Orientation School for New Circuit Judges   7/2/2001;

(e)   Annual Judicial Conference                   8/23/2001;

(f)   SCBLA Conference                         9/14/2001;

(g)   Annual Criminal Law Update, Annual

Civil Law Update                             1/25/2002;

(h)   Circuit Judges' Annual Conference             5/8/2002;

(i)     SCTLA Annual Convention                   8/1/2002;

(j)     Annual Judicial Conference                   8/22/2002;

(k)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 1/23/2003;

(l)     Annual Civil Law Update                     1/23/2003;

(m)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 1/24/2003;

(n)   Women Lawyers in the New Millennium         4/11/2003;

(o)   SC Circuit Judges' Conference                 5/7/2003;

(p)   National Judicial College   General

Jurisdiction Course                             7/14/2003;

(q)   SCTLA Annual Convention                   8/7/2003;

(r)   Annual Judicial Conference                   8/21/2003;

(s)   SCDTAA Annual Conference                 11/6/2003;

(t)   Annual Criminal Law Update                   1/23/2004;

(u)   Annual Civil Law Update                     1/23/2004;

(v)   National Conference on Racial and Ethnic Fairness

the Courts                                   4/14/2004;

(w)   SC Circuit Judges' Annual Conference           5/5/2004;

(x)   SCTLA Annual Conference                   8/6/2004;

(y)   Annual Judicial Conference                   8/19/2004;

(z)   Supreme Court Judicial Oath of Office           8/19/2004;

(aa)   National Judicial College Advanced Evidence   11/15-19/2004;

(bb)   Annual Civil Law Update                     1/21/2005;

(cc)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 1/21/2005;

(dd)   National Conference on Racial and Ethnic

Fairness in the Courts                           4/13/2005;

(ee)   Annual Circuit Judges Conference           5/11-13/2005;

(ff)   Annual Judicial Conference                   8/24/2005;

(gg)   Annual SC Solicitors Conference               9/25/2005;

(hh)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 1/27/2006;

(ii)   Annual Civil Law Update                     1/27/2006;

(jj)   National Conference on Racial and Ethnic

Fairness in the Courts                           4/26/2006;

(kk)   National Judicial College Handling

Capital Cases                               6/10-15/2006;

(ll)   Annual Circuit Judges Conference             5/10/2006;

(mm)   Annual Judicial Conference                 8/23/2006;

(nn)   SCDTAA Annual Conference                 11/9/2006;

(oo)   Annual Criminal Law Update                 1/26/2007;

(pp)   Annual Civil Law Update                     1/26/2007;

(qq)   National Conference on Racial and

Ethnic Fairness in the Courts                   5/2-5/5/2007;

(rr)   Annual Circuit Court Judges Conference         5/16/2007;

(ss)   SCTLA Annual Conference                 8/2-3/2007;

(tt)   Annual Judicial Conference                   8/22/07."

Judge Jefferson reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Business Law Instructor, Trident Technical College Paralegal Program, 1993-1994 School Term;

(b)   'Rules, Rules, Rules' South Carolina Practice and Procedures Update, Presenter on the issue of Family Court Rules, SC Bar, March 20, 1998;

(c)   Speaker/Panel Participant Wiley A. Branton Symposium, National Bar Association, October 24, 1998;

(d)   'Current Issues in Attorney's Fees', Presenter, SC Bar Association, November 6, 1998;

(e)   Recent Developments in Family Law, 'Six by Six' CLE Seminar, Presenter, Charleston County Bar Association, December 10, 1998;

(f)   'Adjudication Hearings', Presenter and Contributor to Family Court Judges Juvenile Workbook, SC Association of Family Court Judges, May 20, 1999;

(g)   'Tips from the Bench', Adoption, Presenter, SC Bar Association, February 25, 2000;

(h)   'The Role of the Judge and Guardian ad Litem in Abuse and Neglect Proceedings' Judges Panel, South Carolina Guardian ad Litem Conference, April 14, 2000;

(i)     'Women, Leadership and the Law', Brown Bag Lunch Panel Participant, SC Women Lawyers Association and College of Charleston Women's Studies Program, September 22, 2000;

(j)     Family Law Update and Tips from the Bench, Presenter, Charleston Lawyers Club, May 2, 2001;

(k)   'The Use of Psychological Evaluations in Juvenile Proceedings', Panel, Children's Law Center, May 18, 2001;

(l)     Judges Panel, 3rd Annual Children's Law Conference, May, 2001;

(m)   December 13, 2002, Hot Tips III, 'Appeals and Motions';

(n)   April 11, 2003, Women Lawyers in the New Millennium, 'Ethics Issues from Various Judicial Perspectives';

(o)   November 15-19, 2004, National Judicial College, Advanced Evidence, Group Discussion Leader;

(p)   June 20, 2003, SCDTAA Trial Academy Judge;

(q)   December 2004, 2004 Local Government Attorneys' Institute, Administered Oath;

(r)   January 2005, 9th Annual Probate Court Seminar, Administered Oath;

(s)   September, 2005, SCBLA, Judicial Selection in South Carolina, Judicial Panel;

(t)     September 26, 2005, SC Solicitors' Association Conference, Criminal Law Update, 'Recent Court Decisions';

(u)   October 20, 2005, Charleston School of Law Professionalism Series, 'Civility and Ethics';

(v)   November 4, 2005, SC Defense Trial Lawyers Ethics and Civility **In Trial unable to make the presentation;

(w)   February 15, 2006, Charleston School of Law Ethics & Professionalism presentation;

(x)   May 1, 2006, Law Day, Panel Presentation Judicial Selection in South Carolina Charleston School of Law;

(y)   6/10/2006 National Judicial College, Handling Capital Cases, Group Discussion Leader;

(z)   September 29, 2006, SCBLA, 'Civil Practice';

(aa)   November 16, 2006, Young Lawyers Division, New Admitees Reception, Presentation;

(bb)   May 24, 2007, Young Lawyers Division, 'Tips for Young Lawyers in Circuit Court'."

Judge Jefferson reported that she has published the following: "I have provided written seminar materials for the courses listed above and these materials have been published by the S.C. bar as a part of their published seminar materials. I have not published any books or articles."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Jefferson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jefferson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jefferson has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Jefferson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Jefferson reported that prior to her election to the bench she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Jefferson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Jefferson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Judge Jefferson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1989.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   Law Clerk to the Honorable Richard E. Fields of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Charleston, S.C., August 1989 through August 1990. Primary Responsibilities: legal research, preparation of jury charges, preparation of Orders, scheduling of motions, all tasks required to prepare the Judge and myself for trials/hearings during the term and all other daily tasks as required by the Judge that ensured the smooth operation of Court;

(b)   McFarland and Associates, Attorney, October 1990 through March 1996. Trial practice focusing on the following areas: Domestic Relations, Civil Litigation (all types), Probate Law, Real Estate Law and Criminal Law;

(c)   Resident Family Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, elected to serve February 14, 1996 through June 2001;

(d)   Resident Circuit Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, elected to serve May 31, 2001 to the present."

Judge Jefferson reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a)   Federal:   approximately 15 times;

(b)   State:   approximately 50-60 times."

Judge Jefferson reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a)   Civil:       47%;

(b)   Criminal:   6%;

(c)   Domestic:   47%."

Judge Jefferson reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her election to the bench as follows:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a)   Jury:       5%;

(b)   Non-jury:   95%."

Judge Jefferson provided that prior to her election to the bench she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Jefferson's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"I have been a sitting judge since April 1, 1996 and am therefore providing the responses from my previous judicial screening application dated October 1995.

(a)   Blake v. County of Charleston, This case involved complex (federal) civil rights litigation. It was tried for two (2) weeks and involved many motions and other complex legal issues relating to evidence and the new federal rules. The case also resulted in a mistrial and was later tried a second time for one (1) week. I tried this case with two (2) other lawyers, both of whom had been practicing more than eighteen (18) years. During this process I was treated as an equal and an integral part of the litigation team. I was entrusted with a great deal of responsibility, which included arguing motions, examination of witnesses, preparation of motions, and preparation of jury charges. This case challenged many current practices within the Charleston County Police Department. This case caused the Charleston County Police Department to evaluate and change many of their policies and practices;

(b)   Hymes v. Khoury, This case was a simple auto accident, which I did not think would be successful. This case taught me the importance of the strategic application of the civil rules of procedure and case law. Although this case took one (1) day to try, the jury deliberated for two (2) days and returned a verdict in favor of my client;

(c)   In Re: The Estate of Joseph J. White, Jr., et al., This was a probate court case. The central issue in this case involved the paternity of a two (2) year old minor child of the victim of an automobile fatality. The case involved an intense three (3) day probate trial. The trial involved approximately forty (40) witnesses. It also involved a unique question of law concerning the jurisdictional conflict between the probate and family courts. A favorable ruling was returned by the Probate Judge and the Circuit Court on appeal. In addition, I handled the wrongful death cause of action on behalf of the minor which resulted in a substantial recovery for the minor;

(d)   Ashby v. Ashby, In this case I represented the plaintiff/husband who sought custody of his three (3) children. The Court applied the primary caretaker doctrine in awarding custody to the father. The case also involved issues of equitable distribution, adultery, child support and attorney's fees;

(e)   Thompson v. Polite, This case involved a hotly contested issue of visitation between the plaintiff/husband and his minor son. The defendant/wife was adamant in her refusal to allow visitation. My client was awarded reasonable visitation at the Temporary Hearing of this case. Prior to the Final Hearing the parties submitted to mediation. Through this process they were able to come to an amicable agreement regarding visitation and the rearing of their child. This case reinforced my belief in the value of alternative dispute resolution (mediation) as a method of improving the efficient use of court time and resources."

Judge Jefferson reported that she has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.

Judge Jefferson reported that she has held the following judicial offices:

"(a)   Resident Family Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat Five, elected February 14, 1996. My service in this seat began April 1, 1996, and concluded in June 2001 when I was elected to the Circuit Court. I was elected to this position by the General Assembly. The Family Court is a statutory court of limited and specific jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Family Court is set forth in S.C. Code Annotated section 20-7-420, et seq. (i.e. divorce, custody, child support, name changes, juveniles, equitable distribution, adoptions, abuse and neglect, and as further set forth in the statute);

(b)   Currently a Resident Circuit Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1. My service in this seat began in June 2001. I was elected to this position by the General Assembly on May 30, 2001. The Circuit Court is South Carolina's Court of general jurisdiction. It has a civil court, the Court of Common Pleas, and a criminal court, the Court of General Sessions. In addition to its general trial jurisdiction, the Circuit Court has limited appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Probate Court, Magistrate's Court, and Municipal Court."

Judge Jefferson provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Evening Post Publishing Company, et al. v. City of North Charleston, 357 S.C. 59, 591 S.E.2d 39 (Ct. App. 2003), 363 S.C. 452, 611 S.E.2d 496 (2005);

(b)   State v. Washington, 367 S.C. 76, 623 S.E.2d 836 (Ct. App. 2006);

(c)   Owner's Insurance v. Clayton, et al., 364 S.C. 555, 614 S.E.2d 611 (2005);

(d)   Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Moore, 369 S.C. 493, 632 S.E.2d 862 (2006);

(e)   State v. Stephen C. Stanko, 99-GS-22-918."

Judge Jefferson further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I ran for the seat that was to be vacated by the Hon. Robert R. Mallard in or about January 1995 through March of 1995. I went through the screening process successfully and was found qualified to hold judicial office. I voluntarily withdrew from the process prior to the election. I was subsequently elected to the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 on February 14, 1996."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Jefferson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Jefferson to be "an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Supreme Court Bench."

Judge Jefferson is not married. She has no children.

Judge Jefferson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   Charleston County Bar Association;

(c)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges Association;

(d)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association."

Judge Jefferson provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   The Life Center Cathedral, Charleston, S.C.; Trustee Ministry, 2001-present; Co-Founder and Director of Young Women's Ministry 'YWCE', 1999-present;

(b)   Charleston Chapter of the Links, Inc., Co-Chair Services to Youth 2000-2001; Corresponding Secretary 2004-2006; Chair Bylaws Committee 2006-2007; Vice President 2007-present;

(c)   Former member Junior League of Charleston, former Strategic Planning Committee, Community Project Development Committee, Advisory Planning Committee, and President's Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity; 1993-2003;

(d)   Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., 1982-present;

(e)   The Post and Courier Feature Article August 6, 2001;

(f)   The Post and Courier 'High Profile' Article May 7, 2005;

(g)   'The Heritage List, 9 Dazzling Women of Spirit and Humility' Celebrate Your Heritage Magazine, Spring 2005;

(h)   NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award 2003;

(i)     Greater Charleston YWCA Lifetime Achievement Award 2004;

(j)     Advisory Board Charleston School of Law 2002-present;

(k)   Converse College Board of Trustees 2002-present, Committee on Trustees, Enrollment Committee and Student Affairs; Academic Affairs Committee;

(l)     Converse College Board of Visitors 2001-2002;

(m)   April 24, 2003 Founder's Day Speaker, Converse College;

(n)   Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, 2000 to the present;

(o)   South Carolina Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution 2002-2006, User Education Sub-Committee;

(p)   Co-Chair 9th Circuit Courthouse Security Commission 2006;

(q)   Associate Acting Justice South Carolina Supreme Court for the terms November 2, 2006, December 1, 2005 and June 10, 2004;

(r)   Associate Acting Judge South Carolina Court of Appeals for the term June 19-13, 2003 during this term I sat En Banc with the Court, authored two (2) opinions and participated on seven (7) other panels/opinions;

(s)   Designated by Justice Toal to represent the Judicial Department at the National Conference on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts 2003-present;

(t)   Designated as Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes for the 9th Circuit as follows: General Sessions July 1, 2002-January 5, 2003; Common Pleas January 6, 2003-January 3 2004; General Sessions January 4, 2004-July 3, 2004 and Common Pleas January 1, 2006-December 30, 2006; General Sessions, Jan. 1-July 31, 2008;

(u)   Assigned exclusive jurisdiction of the following cases by the Supreme Court: April 29, 2003 (03-GS-47-4) Statewide Grand Jury, State v. Bunker, et al.; December 2, 2003 (01-CP-18-0074A) Boyd v. Nationwide; June 28, 2004 (03-GS-38-2411-2413), State v. Levi Bing, Jr.; October 3, 2004 (2002-CP-15-471 and 494) Carter v. Steedley, et. al.; May 6, 2005 (05-GS-22-0918) State v. Stephen C. Stanko; October 3, 2005 (1996-GS-32-3341) State v. Jeffrey L. Jones; March 7, 2006 (04-CP-18-1951) Price v. Jones Ford, Inc.;

(v)   September 6, 2005 Nominated for the inaugural class of the Lowcountry Diversity Leadership Academy developed by the American Institute for Managing Diversity and the Richard W. Riley Institute of Government, Politics and Public Leadership at Furman (had to decline due to the demands of the Court schedule);

(w)   September 21, 2006 Nominated for the Lowcountry Diversity Leadership Academy (had to decline due to the demands of the Court Schedule);

(x)   July 2006 Invited by the National Judicial College to be a group discussion leader for the General Jurisdiction Course (had to decline due to the demands of the Court schedule, however, I have been asked to participate when the schedule will allow my participation);

(y)   Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission 2007-present;

(z)   S.C. Liberty Fellow-Class of 2009. 2007-present."
(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Jefferson is well qualified for the Supreme Court and cited as examples that she appears to have a vast knowledge of the law and the diverse legal background she offers. They noted Judge Jefferson's professionalism and compassion for litigants in her courtroom. They further noted that she is very well respected on the Circuit Court bench where she has served for the past six and a half years.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Jefferson qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Supreme Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kittredge meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Kittredge was born in 1956. He is 51 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Kittredge provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kittredge.
Judge Kittredge demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Kittredge reported that he has made $398.23 in campaign expenditures for postage, paper and envelopes.
Judge Kittredge testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Kittredge testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Kittredge to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Judge Kittredge described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Jan. 2000     15th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(b)   May 2000     Circuit Judges' Association Meeting;

(c)   Aug. 2000     Annual Judicial Conference;

(d)   Jan. 2001     16th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(e)   May 2001     Circuit Judges' Association Conference;

(f)     Aug. 2001     Annual Judicial Conference;

(g)   Jan. 2002     17th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(h)   May 2002     Circuit Judges' Association Conference;

(i)     Aug. 2002     Annual Judicial Conference;

(j)     Jan. 2003     18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(k)   May 2003     Circuit Judges' Association Conference;

(l)     May 2004     Circuit Judges' Association Conference (presenter);

(m)   Aug. 2003     Annual Judicial Conference;

(n)   Aug. 2004     Annual Judicial Conference;

(o)   Dec. 2004     Greenville County CLE (presenter);

(p)   May 2005     Family Court Judges' Conference (presenter);

(q)   Aug. 2006     Family Court JCLE 'Mini Summit';

(r)     Aug. 2006     Annual Judicial Conference;

(s)   Nov. 2006     Annual ABOTA CLE (presenter);

(t)     March 2007     App. Court Judges' Conf for SC and NC App. Judges;

(u)   May 2007     Family Court Judges' Conference (presenter);

(v)   Aug. 2007     SCTLA Conference (presenter);

(w)   Aug. 2007     Annual Judicial Conference;

(x)   Oct. 2007     JCLE for SC Masters (presenter)."
Judge Kittredge reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have also spoken to school children, including middle and high school students. I have further spoken to college level students. I have spoken to other groups, such as law enforcement officers."
Judge Kittredge reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   Around 1978 I wrote a paper entitled The Inevitability of Police Discretion which was published in the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association magazine;

(b)   An article on juvenile justice was published in the Greenville News in December, 1992;

(c)   I have also written an article on Judicial Activism, but it has not been published."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittredge did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittredge did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kittredge has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Kittredge was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Kittredge reported that prior to his election to the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Kittredge appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Kittredge appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Kittredge was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a)   I served as a law clerk to the Honorable William W. Wilkins, Jr., then United States District Judge, from August 1982 through 1984. From September 1984 until July 1991, I worked at the law firm of Wilkins, Nelson and Kittredge. I had a litigation practice;

(b)   I also worked as a part-time assistant solicitor from 1984 until mid-1985, and then again for several months in 1986 to try several cases at the request of the Solicitor. As an assistant solicitor, I prosecuted many criminal cases;

(c)   I was elected by the General Assembly to the family court bench in 1991. In 1996, I was elected by the General Assembly to the circuit court bench. In 2003, I was elected by the General Assembly to the Court of Appeals."
Judge Kittredge reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   two times per year;

(b)   State:   weekly."
Judge Kittredge reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:       25%;

(b)   Criminal:     2 to 5%;

(c)   Domestic:   65%."
Judge Kittredge reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:       approximately 10%;

(b)   Non-jury:   approximately 90%."
Judge Kittredge provided that prior to his election to the bench he most often served as follows: "I was sole or lead counsel in the majority of the cases. I was associate counsel in approximately 25 to 30%."

The following is Judge Kittredge's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Floyd McDuffie, (approximately 1985, Greenville County General Sessions Court.) I prosecuted many cases as an Assistant Solicitor, and this case was significant to me. It involved a highly publicized murder and robbery. Interesting legal questions arose during the trial. The defendant was convicted of armed robbery and manslaughter and sentenced to jail;

(b)   State v. Donnie Robinson, (approximately 1986, Greenville County General Sessions Court.) I prosecuted this defendant for armed robbery and kidnapping. This was a highly publicized case in which the defendant kidnapped the victim at gunpoint in the parking lot of Haywood Mall in Greenville. The defendant then forced the victim to withdraw money from her bank account. The victim eventually escaped from the defendant. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts and he received a life sentence;

(c)   Stogner v. City of Mauldin, 84-CP-23-680. I, along with my law partner, represented the defendant. Plaintiff filed a myriad of claims (including a 42 USC Section 1983 cause of action) arising from a challenge to the zoning ordinance of the City of Mauldin. The case was tried to a jury. Judgment for defendant at the close of evidence;

(d)   Collins Music v. Terry et al., 87-CP-23-2982. I represented plaintiff in this common pleas action. The case received substantial publicity. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, tortuous interference with contractual relations and unfair trade practices. Plaintiff prevailed. Judgment was entered in the approximate amount of $18,000 actual damages and $100,000 punitive damages. The case was appealed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (303 S.C. 358, 400 S.E.2d 783 (1991)). I also handled the appeal;

(e)   First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 90-CP-23-955. I represented the church (on a pro bono basis) in its petition to close a road on its property. The road closing was necessary to enable the church to expand its facility to accommodate its growing membership. This was far more than a typical road closing case. For political reasons, the church's petition was adamantly opposed by the City of Mauldin. Significant publicity surrounded the case and trial. Following a lengthy trial, judgment was entered in favor of the church and the road was closed, thus enabling the church to expand its facilities. I was elected to the family court bench while the case was on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed, 308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992)."

The following is Judge Kittredge's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"I am submitting the briefs I was able to retrieve from prior submissions to the JMSC. The firm in which I practiced law no longer exists. Please note that as an appellate judge, I have authored hundreds of opinions, of which more than 60 are published as of this date. These opinions provide further evidence of my knowledge of the law, substantive and procedural.

(a)   Collins Music v. Terry, 303 S.C. 358, 400 S.E.2d 783 (Ct. App. 1991);

(b)   S.C. Tax Commission v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 305 S.C. 183, 407 S.E.2d 627 (1991). I argued the case before the Supreme Court, but I did not write the brief;

(c)   Watson v. Watson, 291 S.C. 13, 351 S.E.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1986);

(d)   Burns v. Burns, 293 S.C. 1, 358 S.E.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1987);

(e)   Lineberger v. Lineberger, 303 S.C. 248, 399 S.E.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1990)."

The following is Judge Kittredge's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled: "I have not, as an attorney, personally handled a criminal appeal. Please see my note above where I refer to my many opinions as an appellate judge."

Judge Kittredge reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"Family court bench on May 8, 1991, and reelected in May 1995. The family court is a court of limited jurisdiction. In 1996, I was elected to an at-large circuit court judgeship (seat 11). In 1998, I was elected to a resident circuit court judgeship (13th circuit, seat 4). The circuit court is South Carolina's general jurisdiction court, civil and criminal. In 2003, I was elected to the Court of Appeals, where I currently serve. The Court of Appeals is an intermediate, error-correction appellate court."

Judge Kittredge provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"In the sixteen plus years on the South Carolina bench, I have heard thousands of cases. To each litigant who has ever appeared in my court, that case was significant to him or her. Beyond my twelve year service as a trial judge, I was privileged to join the Court of Appeals in 2003. Because the position I seek is an appellate position, I will answer this inquiry primarily by citing opinions I have published as an appellate judge.

(a)   State v. Simmons, 360 S.C. 33, 599 S.E.2d 448 (2004). I sat with the Supreme Court in this death penalty case. I authored the opinion. This capital case involved a Doyle v. Ohio challenge as well as issues of juror voir dire, guidelines for juror dismissal after trial has begun, and propriety of a death sentence when an aggravating circumstance has been invalidated;

(b)   White's Mill Colony, Inc. v. Williams, 363 S.C. 117, 609 S.E.2d 811 (Ct. App. 2005). This appeal concerned multiple issues arising from competing claims of various landowners to access an abutting man-made body of water;

(c)   State v. Crocker, 366 S.C. 394, 621 S.E. 890 (Ct. App. 2005). This appeal arose from a murder and drug related conviction. The opinion addresses the relationship between personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and venue. As to the drug related charge, the context of the jurisdictional and venue challenges concerned acts occurring in more than one county. Appellant also raised evidentiary challenges;

(d)   Murphy v. Owens-Corning, 346 S.C. 37, 550 S.C.2d 589 (Ct. App. 2001). During my service on the circuit bench, I was appointed to the court of appeals for an en banc proceeding. The case involved an exception to the final judgment rule, thus permitting appeal of an interlocutory order because it affected a substantial right and struck part of a pleading. The substance of the appeal dealt with the applicability of the 'door closing statute' in an asbestos induced injury. I wrote the opinion (7 to 2) reversing the original panel decision. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed as modified. 356 S.C. 592, 590 S.E.2d 479 (2003);

(e)   Queens' Grant II v. Greenwood Development Corp., 368 S.C. 342, 628 S.E.2d 902 (Ct. App. 2006). This case, involving cross-appeals, concerned the construction of agreements related to horizontal property regimes and the ability of the developer to amend covenants, particularly the ability of the developer to unilaterally increase common area maintenance assessments. The appeal also implicated the horizontal property regime act. Many procedural and substantive issues were raised, including the appeal of an interlocutory order (i.e., denial of summary judgment), rule against perpetuities, etc.;

(f)   State v. Thompson, 363 S.C. 192, 609 S.E.2d 556 (Ct. App. 2005). This appeal addressed the validity of a search warrant when the warrant is overbroad and invalid in part. The court held that overbroad portions in a search warrant may be 'severed' from portions supported by probable cause. The case also dealt with a challenge based on 'staleness;'

(g)   Wehle v. SC Retirement System, 363 S.C. 394, 611 S.E.2d 240 (2005). I was appointed as a special referee by the Supreme Court. The case was brought by retired state employees as a class action against the state retirement system alleging the system had failed to properly credit unused annual leave. The Supreme Court adopted my report and recommendation."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Kittredge's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Kittredge to be "a most competent and excellent jurist." They noted that "his qualifications exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Kittredge is married to Lila (Graham) Hewell Kittredge. He has three children.
Judge Kittredge reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar 1982 - present;

(b)   Greenville County Bar 1982 - present."
Judge Kittredge provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   First Presbyterian Church of Greenville; Sunday School teacher and member of Denominational Concerns Committee;

(b)   Greenville Saltwater Sportfishing Club;

(c)   Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; and

(d)   Greenville Country Club (no longer member)."

(11)   Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Kittredge has an outstanding reputation as a jurist, which is reflected in his recent survey by the Bar; and that all jurists in this State should strive to achieve the type of judicial temperament he maintains. They noted his great intellect and ability to articulate his knowledge of the law. They further noted this was demonstrated by Judge Kittredge's outstanding performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure Test.
(12)   Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Kittredge qualified and nominated him for election to the Supreme Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Morehead meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Morehead was born in 1946. He is 61 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Morehead provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Morehead.
Judge Morehead demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Morehead reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Morehead testified 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;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Morehead testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Morehead to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Morehead described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"Conference/CLE Name                                 Date(s)

(a)   Annual Judicial Conference                     08/22/07;

(b)   Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial

Lawyers                                     08/02/07;

(c)   Orientation School for New Family Court Judges     07/11/07;

(d)   Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative

Purposes in Family Court                       02/15/07;

(e)   Family Law Seminar at South

Carolina Bar Convention                         01/26/07;

(f)     South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference

12/01/06;

(g)   National Judicial College Judges/Journalists Seminar   09/28/06;

(h)   Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution Training   09/08/06;

(i)     Annual Judicial Conference                     08/23/06;

(j)     Mini Summit on Justice for Children               08/22/06;

(k)   Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Trial Lawyers Convention                       08/03/06;

(l)     Annual Family Court Judges Conference           04/26/06;

(m)   Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Bar Convention                               01/27/06;

(n)   Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar

on Procedure and Substantive Law                 12/09/05;

(o)   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference   12/02/05;

(p)   Annual South Carolina Solicitor's

Association Conference                         09/25/05;

(q)   Annual Judicial Conference                     08/24/05;

(r)   Family Law Seminar at South Carolina

Trial Lawyers Convention                       08/04/05;

(s)   Drug Court Planning Initiative                   07/12/05;

(t)     Annual Family Court Judges Conference           04/27/05;

(u)   Drug Court Planning Initiative                   03/02/05;

(v)   Family Law Seminar at South

Carolina Bar Convention                         01/21/05;

(w)   Seminar for Chief Administrative

Family Court Judges                           12/10/04;

(x)   Horry County Bar Association Family Court Seminar

on Procedure and Substantive Law                 12/08/04;

(y)   South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference   12/03/04;

(z)   Annual Judicial Conference                     08/19/04;

(aa)   Family Law Seminar at South Carolina Trial

Lawyers Convention                           08/05/04;

(bb)   Annual Family Court Judges Conference       &