| Printed Page 1610, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 1630, Mar. 14 |

3. Professional Experience:

The Joint Committee found Mr. Stilwell to have handled sophisticated legal matters and to have the experience he would need for service on the Court of Appeals.

Mr. Stilwell's practice has been approximately 50% civil, 10% criminal, and 40% domestic over the past five years. He has appeared in state court approximately thirty to forty times a year for the past several years. In response to the Joint Committee's request for a list of matters he actually took to trial over the past several years, Mr. Stilwell provided the Joint Committee with a list of fifteen matters which included three family court appearances, eight appearances in the court of common pleas, two appearances in probate court, one appearance before a master in equity, and one South Carolina Supreme Court appeal.

Mr. Stilwell has handled a number of civil appeals and two criminal appeals.

Mr. Stilwell testified that he chose to limit his criminal practice because he could not have practiced criminal law and devoted time to his service in the Senate and to the practice of other types of law. Mr. Stilwell said that he prefers the general practice of law and did not want to specialize.

The Joint Committee also recognized Mr. Stilwell's willingness while in the Senate to lend his experience and leadership to very complex legal matters. For example, Mr. Stilwell has in recent years served as a conferee on the 1991 Ethics Act and government restructuring. He also served on the reapportionment subcommittee.

4. Judicial Temperament:

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

Mr. Stilwell 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. Stilwell testified that he would serve a full term if elected and that he has no plans to return to private practice.

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

7. Financial Responsibility:

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

8. Public Service:

Mr. Stilwell has been a member of the Senate for eight years. He has served on the Correctional System Study Commission and the Greenville County Court Library Commission. He is currently a member of the Greenville County Bar Grievance Committee, the South Carolina Bar Resolution of Fee Disputes Committee, and the South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee.

The Joint Committee questioned Mr. Stilwell on his plans for political activity once elected to the bench. Mr. Stilwell testified that if elected, the only political activity he would be involved in after his election but before his swearing in would be voting in the General Assembly. He testified that he would no longer be active in local or statewide political affairs once sworn in.

9. Ethics:

Mr. Stilwell 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 Senate staff or other resources to campaign or prepare his application materials.

Mr. Stilwell also testified that he has not spent more than $100 on his campaign and has, therefore, not been required to file campaign expenditure reports with the House or Senate Ethics Committee.

10. Miscellaneous:

Mr. Stilwell testified that if elected he would seek to be included on various panels such as the committee on mediation and arbitration.

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

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Judge Goolsby 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:

Judge Goolsby enjoys an outstanding reputation for honesty and integrity. The Bar described his integrity as "beyond question" and that description is consistent with other input the Joint Committee received. The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.

Judge Goolsby demonstrated a through 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 does not have much of a problem with that on the Court of Appeals, but that he has procedures in place to ensure that improper communications do not occur. Judge Goolsby also testified that he does not accept gifts, unless they are from family or friends who are not lawyers and whose interests would not likely come before him.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Judge Goolsby graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law cum laude and was a member of the Order of Wig and Robe. He also received an LL.M. in Judicial Process from the University of Virginia Law School in 1992. He has met all continuing judicial education

As a practicing attorney, Judge Goolsby's Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV, their highest rating.

The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar also indicated that Judge Goolsby has excellent legal knowledge and ability. The Bar described him as "intelligent, progressive, and resourceful" and his opinions as "well-reasoned and scholarly."

Judge Goolsby's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was 3.6 out of a possible 4 points and was the highest score of all candidates currently running for judicial office. Judge Goolsby answered all the questions extremely well and demonstrated a thorough understanding of the standards of appellate review, the type of matters that may not be referred to the Court of Appeals, hearings en banc, writs of certiorari, and writs of supersedeas.

3. Professional Experience:

Judge Goolsby has been on the Court of Appeals for over eleven years and was a practicing attorney for over twenty years before his election to the bench. His legal experience before election to the bench involved work for the Attorney General and a short period of private practice.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The input the Joint Committee received from its surveys and from the Bar indicates that Judge Goolsby's temperament is exemplary. Judge Goolsby was described as consistently patient, openminded, courteous, tactful, and understanding.

5. Diligence and Industry:

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

Judge Goolsby is computer literate and has two law clerks to assist him with his responsibilities. Also, after being on the bench for eleven years, the candidate stated that he has learned the "short cuts" to take that he did not know before.

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

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Goolsby 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 Goolsby has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Judge Goolsby has worked in the public sector for almost all of his professional career and has served with distinction.

9. Ethics:

Judge Goolsby 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 Goolsby was extremely conscientious about not using state resources such as pages or secretarial staff during his dealings with the Joint Committee.

Judge Goolsby testified that he has not made campaign expenditures in excess of $100 and has, therefore, not been required to report expenditures to the House or Senate Ethics Committees.

Judge Goolsby 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.

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

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Mr. Brogdon was screened on February 2, 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. In fact, the input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Mr. Brogdon's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Mr. Brogdon demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. On the issue of ex parte communications, Mr. Brogdon stated that he is aware of the impropriety surrounding such communications and that he would avoid them at all costs. He promised to implement procedures to ensure that no one felt like someone else had an advantage because they had talked with him on anything that might be pending.

On the issue of recusal, Mr. Brogdon stated that if the chance of impropriety existed, he would disclose that to the parties and look at the situation very closely. If an appearance of impropriety did exist, he said he would recuse himself. Mr. Brogdon stated that if he had a de minimis financial interest in the litigation, he would disclose that to the parties, but would not automatically recuse himself. The Joint Committee reminds Mr. Brogdon and other judicial candidates that if a party objects after full disclosure of the potential conflict of interest, the judge is required by the Canons to recuse himself. The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Brogdon understands this aspect of the rule, but cautions all candidates to strictly abide by it.

Mr. Brogdon said that he would not accept gifts and would not accept social hospitality if the host seemed to be singling him out because of his service on the bench.

The input the Joint Committee received from its survey and from the Bar indicated that Mr. Brogdon is intelligent and knowledgeable. He has complied with the requirements for continuing legal education.

Mr. Brogdon's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was 2.0 out of 4 possible points. Mr. Brogdon was knowledgeable about when motions for a new trial are appropriate, what factors a judge should consider when accepting a guilty plea, what factors a judge should consider when setting bond, res gestae, and when jeopardy attaches. He was somewhat knowledgeable about the rules governing the introduction of the existence of insurance, damages recoverable without a hearing in a default judgment, the factors to consider when granting a temporary restraining order, and Allen charges. Mr. Brogdon had very limited knowledge of the standard of review in an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission and had no knowledge about how a juror may pose questions to a witness and 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.

Mr. Brogdon has a Martindale-Hubbell rating of BV, which is their middle rating and indicates that his legal ability is considered to be "high to very high."

In response to the Chairman's questions about separation of powers and the role of the judiciary, Mr. Brogdon stated that he believes that acts of the General Assembly are presumed constitutional and given great deference. He also believes that the South Carolina death penalty law has been deemed constitutional and was familiar with the political abstention doctrine.

3. Professional Experience:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Brogdon has sufficient experience for service on the circuit court bench. The Joint Committee is somewhat troubled that Mr. Brogdon's practice seems not to have been very broad, but believes that it has been sophisticated enough to give him experience with the types of issues that would confront him on the bench.

Mr. Brogdon has been a practicing attorney for over seventeen years. Our research indicates that Mr. Brogdon has enjoyed a general practice that has been approximately 90% civil and 10% criminal over the past five years.

Mr. Brogdon described his criminal experience as involving appearances in magistrate's and general sessions court for matters relating mostly to DUI and traffic violations. He said he has also handled a number of pleas

Mr. Brogdon's civil experience has been more sophisticated than his criminal work and has involved work in diverse areas of the law. Mr. Brogdon described his civil experience as involving appearances in circuit court, family court, probate court, magistrate's court, and before the Workers' Compensation Commission. His civil cases have involved complex trial matters such as libel and slander and an action to set aside a deed. The Joint Committee placed particular importance on the fact that many of these matters involved an extensive discovery and motion practice and were often marked by complex trial preparation. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in the matters he has handled, and has also done a good deal of real estate work. He currently represents, among many other clients, several automobile insurance companies and is also the Marion County Attorney.

Mr. Brogdon provided the Joint Committee with a list of five cases that he took to trial during the last several years. These five cases involved two workers' compensation matters in which he represented the claimant, two automobile accident cases in which he represented the defendants, and a driving under the influence, second offense charge tried in general sessions court.

Mr. Brogdon has never handled a civil or criminal appeal, but the Joint Committee does not consider appellate experience to be critical for service on the trial court bench.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal anything that would indicate a potential problem with judicial temperament. Throughout the Joint Committee's work with Mr. Brogdon, he demonstrated the qualities and character required for a judge of outstanding judicial temperament. Furthermore, the input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar's investigation indicated that Mr. Brogdon has the temperament required for service on the bench.

Mr. Brogdon also has the skills required for facilitating conflict resolution, an important element of service on the bench. Mr. Brogdon stated that he has not participated in any alternative dispute resolutions, but he did attend a week-long seminar on mediation and is certified as a mediator.

Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon's wife and two of his three children were present for his screening. His family appears to fully support his decision to seek this position, and he does not foresee that his family responsibilities would conflict with his service on the bench.

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

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

7. Financial Responsibility:

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

8. Public Service:

Mr. Brogdon serves as the Marion County Attorney and is also chairman of the Marion Transportation Commission.

9. Ethics:

Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon also testified that he has not made campaign expenditures in excess of $100 and has, therefore, not been required to report expenditures to the House or Senate Ethics Committees.

Mr. Brogdon 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.

The Joint Committee asked Mr. Brogdon if he participated in or was aware of any orchestrated effort to prove deficiencies in his opponent's experience or character. He testified that he had not participated in and was not aware that any such effort existed.

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

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Mr. Harwell was screened on February 14, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

1. Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Harwell demonstrated a somewhat limited understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct. The Joint Committee was primarily troubled by Mr. Harwell's comments on the issue of recusal. Mr. Harwell stated that he would make a full disclosure of any interest he had and then allow the parties to comment, but the decision on recusal would be his. Mr. Harwell also stated that if he held a de minimis financial interest in a matter before him he would disclose that interest on the record even though he thinks the rules do not require such broad disclosure. The Joint Committee cautions Mr. Harwell that the Canons of Judicial Conduct would require him to disclose any economic interest he had in a matter, even if it were de minimis, and that if a party objects to his hearing a matter in which he has a de minimis financial interest or some other potential conflict of interest, the Canons of Judicial Conduct would require him to recuse himself. Mr. Harwell did say that he would recuse himself if there was any inference or appearance that he may be influenced in a particular case. Mr. Harwell also said that it would be a very long time, if ever, before he could hear a case that involved one of his law partners. He also testified that if elected to the bench he would surrender to his firm any contingent fees due on pending cases.

On the issue of ex parte communications, Mr. Harwell stated that he believes them to be prohibited by the Supreme Court rules. He did, however, recognize that some proceedings, such as temporary restraining orders, must be conducted ex parte.

Mr. Harwell testified that he does not plan to accept gifts and that he would be very careful to prevent a conflict of interest when accepting ordinary social hospitality.

An anonymous letter was recently circulated amongst members of the General Assembly alleging that Mr. Harwell does not live in the district

| Printed Page 1610, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 1630, Mar. 14 |