The embattled S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Commission has issued its controversial report on Lowcountry Judge F.P. “Charlie” Segars-Andrews, a sixteen-year family court judge whom the commission has twice deemed “unfit” to continue serving in that capacity.
You can read our stories on this ongoing saga by clicking here and here if you’re interested (and judging by the traffic this story keeps getting, you are interested).
According to her supporters, Judge Segars-Andrews is the epitome of judicial purity, a crusading judge who is unafraid to let powerful politicos strong-arm her or dictate rulings in her court. To her detractors, she’s an unethical scam artist of the first order who is involved in an elaborate scheme (along with another judge) to steer favorable rulings to her husband and another local attorney – which would obviously be illegal, in addition to evidence of unfitness.
The 52-page report on Segars-Andrews references none of those allegations, however.
In fact, it appears the Commission reached its ruling that Segars-Andrews was unfit to continue serving based exclusively on one divorce case in which she allegedly failed to recuse herself after discovering a conflict of interest.
None of the other accusations relayed to us were referenced in the commission’s report. In fact, the report includes multiple references to her fitness as a judge.
In addition to the release of the report, FITS has also received a preliminary response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on information pertaining to Judge Segars-Andrews’ case.
We’ll update you on that soon …
WEB EXTRA
By Zach December 17, 2009 at 6:07 pm
What did the Supreme Court say about Segars-Andrews conduct in that one case which the Judicial Selection Commission found so egregious? Oh, that’s right. Nothing. What’s up with that, Supreme Court?
By Lilly Collette December 18, 2009 at 9:16 am
Professor Freeman’s reasons for believing that Francis P. Segars-Andrews should be allowed to continue to serve on the bench are without merit reflecting inaccuracies and rather insulting to people who have to rely on his decision making capacities.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/judicialmeritpage/FinalSegarsAndrewsCharlie.pdf
Final Report Issued: Noon, Friday, December 18, 2009
[…]
Professor John P. Freeman’s Comments:
[…] The difference between my vote and that of the other nine members of the Commission lies in our different conclusions drawn from those facts. My conclusions are as follows:
[…]
3. I concur in the finding implicit in my fellow Commission members’ votes that Judge Segars-Andrews erred in reversing course following her announced position that recusal was necessary. […]
4. In my mind Judge Segars-Andrews made a mistake when, having decided independently that recusal was required, she failed to stick to her guns. In other words, having decided she needed to step aside, she should have followed through and maintained her recusal. This mistake was compounded when Judge Segars-Andrews reversed course without giving Mr. Simpson, Jr., and his lawyer a chance to be heard to rebut the position taken by Mrs. Simpson, et al. At the Commission hearing, Judge Segars-Andrews conceded that in hindsight she should have held a hearing to announce her decision that she was not going to recuse herself.7 I note in passing that the procedure for Remittal of Disqualification under Canon 3 was not followed.
5. Despite my disagreement with decisions made by Judge Segars-
Andrews in her handling of the Simpson II matter, I nonetheless have no hesitation in finding that she should be qualified and nominated for another term as Family Court Judge. I hold this view for the following reasons:
[…]
Second, I do not believe we have a right to expect judges to be perfect or never make mistakes. All judges are human, and they will make mistakes. […] There has been no showing of a pattern of misconduct or that Judge Segars-Andrews is otherwise unfit to serve as a judge. In fact, putting aside the Simpson II flip-flop ruling, there is no credible evidence whatever casting doubt on her qualifications or overall performance in my estimation.
Third, I recognize that Mr. Simpson, Jr., believes he was treated unfairly, has lost faith in the system, etc. This is regrettable. […] Because judges are fallible, inevitably we will find well-meaning litigants who become the victims of an error of fact or law by a judge. I do not minimize or downplay this problem.
Fourth, I am concerned about the precedential impact of a decision finding Judge Segars-Andrews unqualified. For one thing, I believe she absolutely is qualified to be a Family Court judge. Beyond that, I believe good judges need to be honest, competent, independent, and fearless. […]
Without disparaging the good faith of any complainant, I worry that the Commission’s credibility will suffer if it becomes a sort of appellate court of last resort for people still anxious to attack judges after having already lost before ODC or in our appellate courts. We live in a litigious society, particularly when it comes to family law matters. There never will be a shortage of frustrated litigants who want to retry lost cases, placing blame on others, including the judges who sat at their trials.
LET ME REPEAT THAT:
Without disparaging the good faith of any complainant, I worry that the Commission’s credibility will suffer if it becomes a sort of appellate court of last resort for people still anxious to attack judges after having already lost before ODC or in our appellate courts. We live in a litigious society, particularly when it comes to family law matters. There never will be a shortage of frustrated litigants who want to retry lost cases, placing blame on others, including the judges who sat at their trials.
It is of CONCERN that this philosophy has been instilled in the law students who have been taught by professor Freeman and are now practicing in our courts.
By Knocktwice December 18, 2009 at 10:24 am
Freeman can be a real piece of work, but in this case he is correct. I think Crystal, Wilcox and maybe even Adams (the other USC law legal ethics professors) would come to the same conclussion based on the proffered allegations. If there were more serious matters of discipline on the table then maybe a different conclusion could be reached. I feel like the divorce case is being used as a cover to play out a political agenda. This sets a dangerous precendent.