| Printed Page 1600, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 1620, Mar. 14 |

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

5. Diligence and Industry:

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

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

When the Court of Appeals receives a case it assigns the matter to one particular judge who is responsible for drafting an opinion after oral argument. There are normally three judges on the panel that hears the oral argument, but only one of the three judges has been pre-assigned the task of writing the opinion. The Joint Committee asked Judge Ervin if he would prepare for all matters that came before his panel, or just those to which he has been pre-assigned to write the opinion. Judge Ervin testified that he has always been a consensus builder and would consult with other members of the court to see what their practices are and work with them in that regard.

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Ervin appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

7. Financial Responsibility:

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

8. Public Service:

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

Judge Ervin testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening; or
(d) used his judicial letterhead or the services of his staff to campaign.

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

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

Judge Ervin reported that he has not received royalties or other income from the sale or publication of his books, Ervin's South Carolina Requests to Charge -- Civil and Ervin's South Carolina Requests to Charge -- Criminal.

10. Miscellaneous:

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

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

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Mr. Hagood was screened on February 1, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

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

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

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

An anonymous survey respondent told the Joint Committee about an incident in which Mr. Hagood allegedly prejudiced a witness in a grand jury investigation. The Joint Committee thoroughly investigated the matter and obtained an affidavit from the witness's attorney describing Mr. Hagood's conduct.

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

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

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

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

Mr. Hagood's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was a 2.6 out of a possible 4 points. He demonstrated a clear understanding of the 1990 changes in the appellate court rules and whether experts could testify to matters of common knowledge. He also did well on questions about what type of cases can be assigned to the Court of Appeals, circumstances in which the Court of Appeals can hear a matter en banc, when the Supreme Court may issue a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals, writs of supersedeas, the role of an amicus, and the admissibility of a prior conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. Mr. Hagood was not as well versed in the standards of appellate review or whether it is a necessary prerequisite for the admission of scientific evidence that the theory and general technique are generally accepted in the scientific community.

3. Professional Experience:

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

Mr. Hagood has been an Assistant United States Attorney since 1990 when he joined the civil division and began handling various matters involving federal agencies in bankruptcy and district court. In 1991, he

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

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

4. Judicial Temperament:

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

5. Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Hagood was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

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

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Hagood appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hagood has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

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

9. Ethics:

Mr. Hagood testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

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

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

10. Miscellaneous:

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

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Judge Hearn was screened on February 1, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

1. Integrity and Impartiality:

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

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

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

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

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

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

3. Professional Experience:

Judge Hearn's appellate experience and her previous service as a law clerk to the Honorable J.B. Ness and as a family court judge has prepared her to serve on the Court of Appeals. Judge Hearn has served on the family court since 1986. She was an associate and then partner from 1979 to 1986 with the firm of Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn, & Hearn. Her

4. Judicial Temperament:

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

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

5. Diligence and Industry:

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

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

7. Financial Responsibility:

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

8. Public Service:

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

9. Ethics:

Judge Hearn testified that she has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening;

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

10. Miscellaneous:

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

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Mr. Stilwell was screened on February 7, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

1. Integrity and Impartiality:

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

Mr. Stilwell demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. He testified as to the issue of ex parte communications, that he would not entertain any ex parte communications from a person who had a matter pending in the court on which he sits.

Mr. Stilwell testified that he would continue to accept gifts of nominal value from friends, such as gag gifts over athletic events of competing schools. He said that the value of the gift and the circumstances under which it was given would determine whether he would consider it acceptable or not. On the issue of the acceptance of social hospitality, Mr. Stilwell said that most of his social connections are with neighbors and close personal friends and that the other social functions he now attends are requirements of his current elected office. Mr. Stilwell testified that if elected to the bench he would attend bar functions where all members of the bar were invited.

Mr. Stilwell testified that there would be several circumstances in which he would recuse himself. He stated that he would recuse himself if he had

Mr. Stilwell currently owns 100% of the interests in his law firm which is organized as a professional association. He testified that if he is elected, he would divest himself of any interest in ongoing cases and would dissolve the professional association as soon as possible. Mr. Stilwell also owns a one-half interest in a building which is currently rented to an engineering firm. He testified that he does not plan to divest himself of this interest, but would recuse himself on any matter involving a tenant or his partner who owns the other one-half interest.

Mr. Stilwell is the secretary and a member of the board of directors in a closely-held corporation which owns, manages, and rents residential property in Greenville. Mr. Stilwell testified that he is not active in the management of this property, and the company is in the process of winding up its affairs.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar indicated that Mr. Stilwell is very intelligent and knowledgeable. Mr. Stilwell's law school record was outstanding, as he was an associate editor of the Law Quarterly and chief justice of the Society of Wig and Robe.

Mr. Stilwell has been exempt from the requirements of continuing legal education for the last two years because he has been a member of the Bar for thirty years. He testified that he keeps up with changes in the law by reading continuing legal education materials and by virtue of his service in the Senate. He has also presented several continuing legal education and other seminars on real estate, new developments in the law, and the 1991 Ethics Act.

Mr. Stilwell's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.

Mr. Stilwell's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was 2.73 out of 4 possible points. He was very familiar with what damages may be recovered without a hearing in a default judgment, res gestae, the admissibility of expert testimony, writs of supersedeas, and

| Printed Page 1600, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 1620, Mar. 14 |