|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Three months after the South Carolina supreme court promised to shed light on the state’s secretive system for disciplining judges and lawyers, the first quarterly reports have arrived — offering the public its first-ever look inside a process long hidden behind courthouse doors.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) released anonymized summaries covering July through September 2025, detailing how dozens of judicial complaints were screened, investigated, and ultimately dismissed under the court’s new transparency rules.
While no sanctions or public reprimands were issued, the reports mark a significant — if cautious — step toward accountability in a state where judicial discipline has historically operated in near-total secrecy.
***
WHAT THE PUBLIC CAN SEE
Until this summer, South Carolina citizens had no way of knowing what happened when a judge was accused of misconduct. The new requirement — part of the Supreme Court’s June 25, 2025 order — compels the disciplinary counsel to publish quarterly summaries (.pdf) of every dismissed or privately resolved complaint.
The inaugural reports provide a sweeping overview:
- 48 complaints were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — almost all from litigants challenging legal rulings rather than alleging ethical violations.
- Another 13 complaints were thrown out during the initial evaluation phase after reviewers found no evidence of bias, ex parte contact, or incapacity.
- 15 complaints failed for lack of specificity — the new Rule 14(d)(2) standard requiring complainants to identify a specific judge and describe each alleged act of misconduct.
- 14 additional matters were formally investigated and dismissed when no “clear and convincing” evidence of misconduct was found.
- The Commission itself issued one “letter of caution” — the mildest form of discipline — to a rural magistrate who, due to a lack of clerical staff, had engaged in administrative ex parte communications without promptly notifying opposing parties.
No confidential admonitions or deferred disciplinary agreements were reported.
***
RELATED | MAKING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE MORE TRANSPARENT
***
COMMON THREADS: BIAS, RECUSAL, AND ‘LEGAL ISSUES’
The majority of dismissed complaints centered on judicial rulings, with ODC repeatedly emphasizing that disagreement with a judge’s legal decision is not grounds for discipline.
Among the examples:
- A family-court litigant accused a judge of “abuse of discretion” in a custody case.
- A probate complaint alleged a judge “lied on the record” but offered no details.
- A magistrate was accused of “conspiring” to fire a court employee — dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since employment grievances must be handled by the county.
Even when allegations reached the investigative stage, most failed to meet the evidentiary threshold. One complaint claimed a circuit judge’s “disapproving body language” proved bias; another argued a scrivener’s error (“Mr. Brown” in an order) showed racial prejudice — both were rejected after review.
***
RELATED | MURDAUGH SAGA: DON’T FORGET ABOUT THE JUDGES
***
‘SUNLIGHT’ – OR A SLIVER OF IT
While the release of this information amounts to progress — it is by no means total transparency (or even anything close to it). Each case remains anonymized, meaning citizens still cannot know which judges were accused, investigated or cautioned.
Without the benefit of names, patterns of behavior remain impossible to track.
Still, the quarterly summaries give the public its first meaningful glimpse into how disciplinary authorities draw the line between legal error and ethical breach — and how often allegations never make it past the initial screening.
The ‘Murdaugh Murders‘ saga exposed how South Carolina’s insular legal culture can enable years of unchecked misconduct. These first reports — though limited — begin to answer a question that has long dogged the judiciary:
When citizens complain, does anyone listen?
Now, for the first time, the public has some sense of how the process works — even if the names of those accused of misconduct remain blacked out.
***
THE REPORTS
***
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.
2 comments
Why should complaints that are completely frivolous or have nothing to do with the ethics of the judge result in a judge being named publicly? That would just result in the judge’s name being drug through the mud for no reason when the person accusing them is generally the one in the wrong.
Which ones are frivolous?