You Scratch My Back …
ANOTHER COZY S.C. POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP FOILS REAL REFORM
FITSNews – December 31, 2007 – We wrote the other day about a federal judge up in Anderson County, S.C. who issued a temporary injunction that prohibits the state’s workers’ compensation commissioners from following the law and using objective standards to settle claims that come before them. And while we were shocked to discover that anybody could read in Anderson County, let alone write a legal opinion, it turns out U.S. District Court Judge G. Ross Anderson can do both.
Amazing, we know.
Of course what’s not amazing is that Judge Anderson’s temporary injunction seems to be rooted in a recurring political theme, one that (sadly) has become about as common in South Carolina as Kudzu in the summertime. Specifically, we’re talking about the existence of a cozy, personal relationship that calls into question the objectivity of an “official decision.”
As it turns out, Kathryn Williams, the Greenville personal injury lawyer who filed the injunction that Judge Anderson granted, used to clerk for … wait for it … Judge Anderson. On top of that, apparently the two of them continue to be “quite good friends” in the words of one judicial official who spoke with FITSNews on the condition of anonymity.
“I am not surprised that he signed the order for her,” the official told us, an interesting choice of phrasing to say the least.
Of course not only did Anderson sign the order for Williams, he did so only a few hours after his office received her complaint.
According to court records, Anderson’s office received Williams’ motion for an injunction at 11:43 AM on Thursday, December 27, with the Judge issuing her client a favorable ruling later that same afternoon.
That’s swift injustice indeed for South Carolina businesses, which have already been forced to shell out a quarter of a billion dollars over the last four years thanks to a Wild West workers’ comp system that refuses to follow the lead of dozens of other states in using objective standards to determine awards.
Anyway, the fact that Judge Anderson did not recuse himself in this instance – and the fact that he actually plans to hold a hearing on this issue “on its merits” nine days from now – is laughable.
It’s almost as laughable as the conduct of five members of the Personal Injury Lawyer Caucus – a group of state legislators who have collectively made millions off of workers’ comp rulings in recent years while simultaneously spearheading the effort to kill real reforms to the system. Earlier this year, these jokers declined to recuse themselves from casting key workers’ comp votes that padded their pocketbooks, ironic because only days earlier they admitted to a conflict of interest and recused themselves from voting on the appointment of a new workers’ comp commissioner.
Seriously, people. This whole thing is as crooked as Sic Willie’s mohawk.
And while we’ve learned not to expect straight-shooting from our legislators, until recently we at least expected it out of our judges.
In fact, one of the Canons of Conduct for federal judges states that they “should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”
The code of conduct goes on to say:
“Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.”
We don’t know about you, but hooking up a good friend and former law clerk with a favorable ruling mere hours after receiving it certainly seems to us a perfect example of the “appearance of impropriety,” if not impropriety itself.
Thus inviting our right to “public scrutiny,” which as Williams’ other “cozy” political friend Harry Cato can probably tell you, Judge, we’re all about exercizing here at FITSNews.
The bottom line? This guy should no sooner be permitted to hear this case than a monkey should be permitted to hear a case involving whether or not he gets to eat more bananas.
Of course finding any public official in South Carolina these days who will actually decide something based “on its merits” as opposed to some Boss Hogg BFF relationship is probably going to be pretty tricky …
Comments
By crazy anderson politics on December 31st, 2007 at 7:38 am
Anderson is a old democrat. I mean really old. He can barely walk and rarely drives himself. He is probably in his mid 80’s. This dude has lost it. He won’t retire until a democrat gets into office.
By What? on December 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am
So, Will, the way you read the canons, Judge Anderson should deny the motion, despite the merits, but take a couple of weeks to do it. As far as the logic in this post, that should be the only way there is no appearance of impropriety, right?
By The Observer on December 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
There are 3 US district Judges in the Upstate, Herlong, Floyd, and Anderson. It is not uncommon at all for someone to file a motion with a judge they at least have a professional relationship with. It’s actually very similiar to a defense attorney waiting for a judge that is known to dismiss cases at summary judgement. An injuction is temporary and it allows for the case/motion to be heard on the merits. The fact that the AMA guidelines specifically say this should not be used for disablity ratings, is merit enough.
By Hmmm... on December 31st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
It’s also not uncommon for someone to file a motion for a temporary injunction and have it ruled on the same day.
By SC Lawyer on December 31st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I agree with posts 2, 3, 4. There’s also nothing surprising about the complaint and I hope the court finds in favor of it on the merits. It’s unconsitutional for a legislature to tell a court how to rule (the so-called “objective” standards–please–and I’m not even a comp lawyer). This is akin to the whole sentencing guideline thing that Congress tried to do about 10 years ago, which was a total disaster, yielded absurd results, and which the federal courts and U.S. Supreme Court have started to dismantle. As for the fact that the lawyer once clerked for the judge, so what? Are law clerks supposed to stop practicing once they leave a court because they happen to know a lot of judges? Most judges impose a two year period where they won’t hear the cases of former clerks, but after that, imposing some sort of permanent suspension on former law clerks would be unfair and impractical.
By Old Drunk Lawyer on January 1st, 2008 at 4:05 am
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill here, Willie. Better stick to going after the state supremes. Ross Anderson is respected by Republicans and Democrats alike, and frankly, there is nothing unusual with such a quick ruling.
Sometimes you catch the judge in his office. The merits will ultimately decide the case.
As for a former law clerk having undue influence, give this old drunk lawyer a break. Do you have any idea how many law clerks judges go through?
Besides, why are so you interested? I doubt this just popped on your political radar out of random interest.
By notverybright on January 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am
This is an example of what I pointed out about all the “scandals” you claim to break here. Occasionally a blind hog finds the acorn, but more often that not, you just fan flames with no real judgment about what’s scandalous and what’s not.
For the reasons the previous commenters described, this is not.
By fitsnews on January 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
NVB,
Seriously, go write a blog post about how you and your pocket abacus have figured out a way to scientifically measure a website’s credibility or something. It’ll be boring, obtuse and no one will read it, but you’ll feel better.
As for the rest of you, we were contacted on this subject by a member of the judiciary who made it clear that if this matter had come before their court, they would have immediately recused themselves.
We found this individual’s observation – and the way they phrased it to us – to be very interesting, and given that it fit Williams’ pattern of leveraging her cozy relationships to advance the best interests of the ambulance chaser lobby, we wrote about it.
NVB is well within her right to disagree with our conclusions, and we are more than happy to publish her thoughts on the matter – no matter how indicative of her itching inferiority complex they may be.
-FITSNews
By Darrell Jenkins on January 1st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
ouch! notverybright just got the smack down. she kinda sucks.
By Mincing Words on January 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
shit, and all this time I assumed NVB was a BOY! I am so friggin disappointed. I hate it when girls act this stupid….
this also tells me you know her, Will. Who is she, your sister, instigating stuff on your site to get us all riled up? tell me it ain’t so, bro.
By Ramdo on January 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
That is Par for the course in the South Carolina’s Justice System. It seems the biggest criminals are the Judges. The Good Old Boy & Girl System in South Carolina is the reason we stay in the dark ages here.
From the SC Supreme Court down to the lowest court in the state they show favortism and cronyism. That is the reason those members who flunk the bar that have family connections can have their test grades changed. I personally believe the whole system is rigged and could not stand a real Investigation from an outside agency not stacked with lawyers. Even with our freedoms America is becoming more and more like a dictatorship or criminal enterprise and you can bet their will be a payday someday.
By Salama on January 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 am
With all that is taking place and being said here I would like each of you to answer these questions.
Do you really believe that someone who clerked for a judge does not have some insight as how to best contact him? Would you try and tell me every other lawyer could contact this judge and get the same response as quickly? Do you think a Supreme Court Judge would stop the court while in session to recognize a nobody? Do you think I could take the Bar Exam and get my Law License if I flunked?
If you answer yeas to any of these questions we citizens are in dire straights but so what is new here in the good old south?
By Here's a thought on January 2nd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
So if Katheryn Williams didn’t clerk for Judge Anderson she wouldn’t have gotten a quick ruling. In the same respect, if Will Folks didn’t work for Sanford, this blog wouldn’t exist.
By Mike on February 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Judge Anderson:
A company from Germany found a South Carolina law firm to go before Judge Anderson to rule on a contract case on a company in based in Utah. That small company was a start up and didn’t have the resources to hire a lawyer in SC to defend it self. Any motions including change of venue were denied by Anderson and a summary judgment with sanctions was issued without admitting or considering ANY evidence or documentation of any kind by the Utah company. Under order by Anderson and threat of contempt the Utah company was required to turn over all business documentation to the krauts.
Now a few years later, the German company is using the Utah companies technology and customer base. If they had >$250K maybe they could have defended them selves but not in Anderson’s court. Justice???
By Mike on February 8th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Is there a age limit or competency criteria for Federal judges? Any oversight??
Trackbacks