|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
By the time an asbestos case in South Carolina makes it to trial, its outcome has already been determined by forces far outside the jury box. Under the cloak of secretive, institutional influence, an intimate clique of receivers, judges and politically connected lawyers controls every lever of the docket — deciding which companies are revived as “zombie corporations” and which insurers are pursued for tens of millions of dollars from outdated policies.
This isn’t just about courtroom advocacy – it’s about influence. The same lawyers who argue before the bench also bankroll campaigns for the powerful lawyer-legislators who choose judges. And the same receiver who manages multimillion-dollar settlements also sits on the scandal-scarred commission that decides who gets to wear the robe.
Meanwhile, the über-influential S.C. House speaker – whose law firm profits from these receivership appointments – could easily take steps to rein in these abuses, but doesn’t. In fact, earlier this year his chamber carved out a special legislative exemption for the Palmetto State’s asbestos racket.
Everywhere you look, everything is connected… and it’s always a one-way ratchet.
Critics call this a “closed loop of power” — an incestuous cycle in which judicial discretion, political clout, and financial self-interest reinforce each other. And while some insist that’s simply how South Carolina’s legislativly controlled judiciary has always operated, the asbestos docket has become a stark case study in how blurred lines between the courthouse and the State House can shape justice itself.
***
RELATED | TOXIC JUSTICE, PART 1
***
THE GATEKEEPERS OF JUSTICE
South Carolina is one of only two states in America where the legislature elects judges. Before candidates ever reach the General Assembly floor, though, they must pass through the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) — a twelve-member body that screens, interviews, and decides which names are eligible for legislative election.
On paper, it’s a check-and-balance system. In practice, critics argue it’s the ultimate insider’s game. The Speaker of the House controls four of the appointments, the Senate another four, and the governor the final four. That gives legislative leaders extraordinary influence over the judiciary, ensuring the bench is filled with candidates who know well where their loyalties lie.
It also means key players in the asbestos racket have a direct hand in shaping the very courts that oversee their cases. For example, powerful S.C. House Murrell Smith — whose law firm has profited from receivership appointments to the tune of millions of dollars — appoints half of the House’s contingent to the JMSC.
Meanwhile, Peter Protopapas, the court’s go-to asbestos receiver, occupies one of the governor’s seats on the commission – and attorney John T. Lay, who represents asbestos receivers, is the only non-legislator appointed by the S.C. Senate.
The result, critics say, is an incestuous cycle. Judges owe their seats to lawmakers who practice before them. Lawmakers profit from the docket through their firms. Receivers appointed by those judges help steer settlement funds back to those same firms. And the system sustains itself, election after election, behind the closed doors of the State House.
State representative Jordan Pace recently called it “a horrible cycle of back scratching at the expense of the general public.” Former chief justice Jean Hoefer Toal‘s docket, Protopapas’ receiverships, and Smith’s dual roles as litigator and legislative leader illustrate the point. The players who benefit from South Carolina’s asbestos litigation aren’t just in the courtroom — they’re in the backrooms where judges are chosen.
***
POLITICAL MONEY AND THE RECEIVERSHIP MACHINE
If the courtroom side of South Carolina’s asbestos docket looks insular, the political side appears to be just as cozy. Ethics filings reviewed by FITSNews reveal that the lawyers and receivers who profit most from the system are also regular contributors to the man whose law firm represents those very receivers: Speaker Murrell Smith.
In February 2022, a cluster of donations landed on Smith’s campaign disclosures in rapid succession:
–Theile McVey (Kassel McVey partner and asbestos plaintiff attorney) gave $1,000.
–Peter Protopapas (the asbestos receiver) gave $1,000 the very next day.
–John Kassel (McVey’s partner) added another $1,000 within the week.
-The Kassel McVey law firm itself chipped in $1,000 on top of that.
In all, at least $4,000 in bundled donations poured into Smith’s coffers in just a matter of days. The pattern continued in later cycles: Kassel McVey made additional contributions in 2023 and again in 2025, keeping Smith’s campaign account flush with cash while his law firm, Smith Robinson, represented Protopapas in asbestos receivership litigation.
It didn’t stop with the speaker, either. Campaign finance records show McVey, Kassel, and their firm directed a combined $19,700 to members of the JMSC. With Smith controlling House appointments to the JMSC and Protopapas himself holding a gubernatorial seat on the commission, those contributions went straight to the people who decide who gets to wear the robe.
That’s where the campaign cash and courtroom control converge. Toal, the retired jurist who oversees the entire asbestos docket, serves at the pleasure of that system. Her continued role as “chief judge for administrative purposes” depends on the same legislative machinery shaped by Smith and reinforced by commissioners like Protopapas.
Critics say this is where the “receivership racket” becomes something more insidious: an anti-transparent closed loop of campaign money, judicial appointments, and courtroom outcomes – all hidden from public view by sealed settlements that hide the vast amount of money these players are receiving from the racket.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers fund the speaker; the speaker picks the judges; the judges pick the receivers; the speaker’s firm profits from receiverships; the receiver hires the speaker’s firm; and the same network of insiders steers who gets to sit on the bench.
Kept out of the loop? Transparency, fairness and public faith in the integrity of the system…
***
POWER, PROFIT, AND THE PERPETUAL RECEIVERSHIP
While lawmakers and lawyers swap campaign checks in Columbia, the same network continues to move millions through the asbestos docket — invariably behind sealed filings.
Last Tuesday and Wednesday (October 28-29, 2025), Protopapas filed a flurry of motions in a specific asbestos case (Tibbs v. 3M) seeking court approval of a “Confidential Master Settlement Agreement” (.pdf) with Anglo American U.S. Holdings Inc. and its affiliates — a group that includes De Beers plc, Element Six, Lightbox Jewelry Inc., and other global companies.
The filings ask judge Toal to:
–approve a confidential settlement;
–seal its contents from public view (.pdf);
–establish a new limited-liability company — the South Carolina Asbestos Victims Compensation QSF LLC — to receive and manage the money (.pdf); and
–grant the receiver continuing jurisdiction “including fees.”
According to the attached operating agreement (.pdf), Protopapas would serve as the sole member and manager of the new fund, empowered to issue advances, pay himself and his lawyers, and even waive service on behalf of Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd. — the defunct English company he claims to represent.
In a separate Receiver’s Report on Attorneys’ Fees (.pdf), he and his co-counsel – including speaker Smith’s firm – ask for a 40% contingency fee on the gross settlement plus reimbursement of expenses — citing nearly 20,000 billable hours, multiple foreign proceedings, and two years of “complex litigation.”
The following day, defendants fired back with a blistering objection (.pdf), calling Protopapas a “putative receiver” with no authority to act for an active English company and accusing him of trying to “bypass and preempt scrutiny” from the S.C. supreme court — which is already reviewing the legality of these receiverships. They warned the filings amount to an attempt to divert 40% percent of a secret payment to the receiver while creating new liabilities in a foreign company’s name.
Two weeks earlier, in an October 6, 2025 hearing (.pdf), Toal had already signaled where she stood:
“I certainly don’t think you’ve got the authority … to try to interfere with the ability of Anglo to settle its responsibilities as it sees them,” she said.
***
***
On October 30, 2025, she made it official. In a 15-page order (.pdf), Toal blessed the deal, approved the 40 percent contingency contracts, and created the South Carolina Asbestos Victims Compensation QSF LLC to hold the funds under the receiver’s control. Her order declared that “any and all claims against Anglo American US Holdings Inc. or its affiliates … are forever ended” and affirmed continuing jurisdiction “in accordance with Income Tax Regulation § 1.468B-1(c)(1).”
Toal wrote that she had reviewed the settlement “in camera” and found it to be a “fair and reasonable arm’s-length resolution.” Confidentiality, she ruled, was “warranted on the present record,” with no need for public filing of the payment terms.
To critics, this latest episode exposes the asbestos machine in microcosm: a politically connected receiver, represented by the speaker’s firm, filing sealed settlement papers before a judge whose administrative authority flows from the very legislature profiting from the process. What followed wasn’t just the approval of a confidential deal — it was the appointed representative of the judicial branch reaffirming that secrecy itself is now part of the system.
The filings read less like routine housekeeping than like a live demonstration of how South Carolina’s asbestos docket merges courtroom discretion with political power — a corrupt cycle of influence where settlements, fees, and authority circulate among the same small group, under seal.
The Anglo-De Beers deal closed one chapter but opened another. Within days of Toal’s order, talk at the State House shifted from sealed settlements to reform bills — measures meant to curb the same judicial entanglements this case laid bare. Lawmakers privately concede that as long as the Speaker’s firm, the receiver, and the judge remain entwined in the same legal orbit, the public will question whose interests the system truly serves.
That question — who watches the watchers — is where this story turns next.
In Toxic Justice, Part 5, FITSNews will examine how the fight over South Carolina’s asbestos docket is colliding with a broader battle over judicial reform — and whether the state’s long-promised “sunshine on the courts” will ever reach Toal’s asbestos empire.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
