On Shaky Ground: Anita Floyd's judicial candidacy

This week, candidates in the upcoming judicial elections will be free to seek votes from state legislators. Before they do, the Blogland's crack investigative team would like to share a tidbit we gleaned from the S.C. Bar's assessments of judicial candidates.

While we invited all the judicial candidates to participate in Blogland interviews, we're not really surprised that Anita Floyd, an attorney from Conway and candidate for the 15th Circuit Family Court seat, refused our invitation to interview, as she probably wouldn't have been very comfortable explaining this part of her bar review:

After interviewing a minimum of 30 members of the Bar who have knowledge of the candidate’s integrity, competence and temperament and interviewing the candidate, the Committee reports the following information. Ms. Floyd has extensive experience in Family Court Matters. She is described as possessing above average legal knowledge and diligence. Concerns were raised by members of the Bar about Ms. Floyd’s temperament, professionalism, and candor. Based on the information and interview, the Committee reports that it is the collective opinion that the candidate is not qualified to serve as a Family Court Judge.


Having done more than our fair share of quantitative research in graduate school, we wanted to understand the process used to ensure that the survey sample is truly representative of the general opinions of attorneys who would have experience with Ms. Floyd. To help with this, the Blogland spoke with four attorneys regarding the Bar's interview process. All four are current members of the South Carolina Bar. Here are the points all four agreed upon:
  • The "minimum of 30 members of the Bar" is a just that - the very least interviews they will conduct. They will often conduct more than 30 interviews.

  • In the event serious concerns are raised, the number of interviews they complete will be increased considerably to help ensure the negative comments are relatively representative and not just the sentiments of a pocket of disgruntled attorneys.

  • Attorneys are generally cautious about their statements when interviewed, and they will often avoid raising concerns except in extreme situations.
In some of these discussions, it was pointed out that in the case of Floyd, the "more than thirty interviews" which were conducted of attorneys (we were told that the actual number ended up being between 50 and 60) who have practiced law in Floyd's home turf represented a large percentage of all attorneys in Horry County.

We would like to have seen those comments, or at least some excerpts from those statements,and hopefully we will see them in future judicial races. However, the general methodology upon which these assessments are made seems fairly sound, in comparison with scientific approaches at surveying. Therefore, we believe that the report of the South Carolina Bar, with regard to attorney Anita Floyd, presents credible concerns which the General Assembly cannot ignore.

We aren't sure if this information is being provided to legislators along with the JMSC assessments, but in case it's not, we're posting this information here. We simply ask that they review all the information, decide for themselves which information is more objective and valid, and make up their minds accordingly.

We're not trying to say that the JMSC findings are not without merit. However, when the choice is between one candidate who was rejected by one review, and another who was found qualified by both, the smart thing to do would be to pick the one who passed both reviews, not just one of them.

Those who sit on the bench must meet very high standards, especially with regard to honesty and fairness. Given recent events with regard to the grading of Bar exams, the need to re-establish credibility in our judicial and legal professions is greater than ever. If the legislature truly wants to help move our state's judiciary towards a higher standard, they should reject Ms. Floyd's judicial candidacy.


ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL CANDIDATES CAN GET THEM ONLINE AT
http://www.scbar.org/pdf/JQCNov07.pdf

40 Response to "On Shaky Ground: Anita Floyd's judicial candidacy"

  1. Anonymous 14/1/08 10:26
    There are some things you should keep your nose out of. You will be sorry you wrote this.
  2. beth 14/1/08 11:23
    It would be a terrible injustice to the people of the state, and more impotantly the people of Horry County, to have a person like Ms. Floyd on the bench. I have worked on cases with Ms. Floyd and the finding of the Bar screen results is dead on.
  3. Horry County Lawyer 14/1/08 11:36
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
  4. Anonymous 14/1/08 12:13
    hey man, a chick like that ... has she met sic willie yet?
  5. Anonymous 14/1/08 15:17
    earl you have been duped. jealous women in horry who consistently lose to her are behind this. Same bar last year found her most qualified. committe called this a witch hunt and now old earl is under their spell.
  6. Anonymous 14/1/08 15:46
    i see the girls that came to columbia have commented. Earl you have been duped. This same bar 11 months prior said" she would possess an excellent judicial temperment".Screening members said it was a witchunt and ol'Earl is under the spell. Shame on you earl. Character assasination ain't your style.
  7. Anonymous 14/1/08 16:15
    I do not practice family law, however, I have an extensive practice in about every other area .I often have clients who need the services of a family court practioner. I can send my clients to any attorney. Nevertheless I choose to send them to Ms. Floyd and have done so for over 20 years. I have not had one complaint. All I can say about those who speak negatively about Ms. Floyd is that no one shoots the candidate in second place.
  8. the rifleman 14/1/08 16:42
    anon - if you're so confident in your friend, why not post your name?

    character assasination? looks like he's just quoting a report.

    by bar rules, no less than 30 attorneys were interviewed. i hardly think that if 3 out of 30 spoke badly of her, they would have refused to endorse her candidacy. there had to be something to it.

    there can't be more than 80-100 attorneys who usually practice family law in horry county, so even if it was just 30, it still had to be a pretty big percentage.

    so you're saying that two or three lawyers cooked up a fake bar report and got him to run with it?

    somehow i don't believe it.
  9. Anonymous 14/1/08 16:59
    Hey Earl, I think you made someone mad. Watch your back, buddy.
  10. Kif 14/1/08 16:59
    Kathryn M. Cook ,Horry County Attorney

    First just let me say that anyone who does not have the conviction to sign their name to their statements should be totally discounted. Second,you do not know have many calls were made by the member of the bar that called about Ms.Floyd as that information is priveledge and cannot be divulged to you. I sit on that committee and will tell your readers that Mr. Capp's comments are without basis. Guess that is what you can do on a blog!!! The Judicial Qualification Committee of the Bar last year stated of Ms. Floyd " She is described as thorough and professional and possessing above average legal knowledge. She would possess an excellent judicial temperament. " What has changed in a year? The makeup of the candidates in this race,one of whom has just now dropped out of the race. I invite your readers and the legislature to review of the transcript of the testimony of two of female attorneys who testified before the Judicial Merit Selection Commission of the Legislature in November,which transcripts are on line. You and your readers will see, as did the members of the House, Senate, and others that sit on that committee the "real motivation" for female lawyers who practice in Family Court in Horry County. It is simple petty jealousy of the professional accomplishment of Ms. Floyd and their support of one of the other candidates in this race. The two female lawyers who testified before legislative committe were both represented in their own personal domestic matter by the cnadidate that has now dropped out. I invite you and your readers to look at the transcripts of the hearing in November which are on-line and the report of the Judicial Qualification Committee of the S.C. Bar for 2006 and 2007 which can also be found at the S.C. Bar website!!! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Oh by the way Mr. Capp's the Judicial Merit Selection Commission did have the report of the S.C. Bar and had thoroughly reviewed the same and all other information in carrying out their important task and could plainly see underlying agenda at play.
  11. Earl Capps 14/1/08 17:43
    Ms. Cook, I didn't invent the Bar report, but I do appreciate you putting your name to your comments. Since you put your name up, I will respond to what you have to say.

    By the way, my last name is CAPPS, not CAPP'S. I had a lot of distant kinfolk up your way, so I'm kind of surprised you would misspell it.

    I have found that most attorneys do spell fairly common names correctly.

    If you think I have an agenda, then please look back to November where I discussed former judicial candidate Linda Lombard, who was also found not qualified. Are you going to accuse me of having an agenda in that race as well?

    Maybe I'm just one of those private citizens who don't find it very funny when a judge is "fit to judge themselves", or when bar exam scores are thrown out.

    Maybe I just want to know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the person who wears the robe is qualified.

    As an attorney, I am sure that you ask a jury to spare your client if they have even the least bit of doubt.

    I do find it hard to believe that two or three attorneys would manipulate a process which requires thirty or more interviews.

    For all I know, you may be presenting some truth here. Regardless, I believe there is something more to it than what you allege. Until that is clarified, I do not believe Ms. Floyd should be entrusted with a judgeship.

    Did I say she should be disbarred? Did I say she is a bad person? I don't know that, but I do know the JMSC took statements from two attorneys, and the SC Bar took statements from thirty or more.

    To me, that says something.

    I do wish we could see those comments, and I hope you would agree with me on that point. Maybe you can lobby the Bar to make these comments public in the future, so we on the outside can make a more informed judgment.

    Don't I have a right to ask questions without being attacked personally?

    Please note that I did take down a personal remark made about Ms. Floyd. Any other such personal remarks will be rejected in the future.

    For that matter, do you believe that I, or any other private citizen, have the right to ask questions and express opinions about our judiciary?

    Or would you rather we just shut up, go away, and let y'all run it from the backroom, as it has always been done in this state?
  12. Just an old engineer 14/1/08 18:08
    Y'all back off Earl. He didn't invent that report. He's only responding to it.

    You should be glad that someone actually cared enough to read through that crap and ask questions. You know and I know most people gloss it over, and don't read and don't care. It could call your friend the Antichrist who molest kids, sells crack and has twenty zillion bad check warrants - and still most people who are supposed to read this stuff wouldn't know it.

    A lot of us are sick of judges who act like goofballs and still have their jobs. Like Danny Martin and Hicks Harwell with F scores, but still elected to the bench. Like Hughston, with DUIs on his record. Like Toal, who is still fit to judge herself - AND THE REST OF US - with two hit and runs.

    Maybe we couldn't pull strings to get someone to rig our bar exams, or anything else in life, so we had to work for it, earn what we have, and work even harder to get it if the first try didn't work.

    Remember - the judges of this state SERVE the people, they don't lord it over them. My ancestors fought and died in places like Brattonsville and Kings Mountain, and Iwo Jima and Korea to make sure of that.

    If you can't respectfully disagree with him, then you aren't doing your's friend image any favors. All you're doing is making it look like your candidate is a kook, who is backed by other kooks.

    Ask your friend to call or email him with her side of the story. Believe it or not, he's reasonable, respectful, tries to do his homework the best way he knows how, and I'll bet he'd listen to your friend as well.

    A guy who profiles Republican and Democratic campaigners a day apart can't be all that unwilling to listen to people he might disagree with.

    I may not have a law degree, but I'm not stupid. Neither is Earl, nor are most of us. Stop talking down to us like you think we are stupid.

    He didn't call your friend a bad person - just said she's not qualified. I think we've all been told that at some point in our lives (and sometimes they were right, only we didn't see it). It's never anything personal.

    So quit trying to make it personal.
  13. Anonymous 14/1/08 19:15
    As I have been scrolling down, reading the comments that people have left I suddenly became amused at the fact that Mrs. Floyd's so called "supporters" apparently are scared to reveal who they are, but I guess that just comes with the territory of being a coward. And, to you other folks who apparently do not research information before opening your mouth need to keep it shut if you have no idea what your talking about, because it is quite funny when you give out false information, you look stupid (you know who I am talking about). Does Mrs. Floyd have experience with children? Has she actually sat down and looked into the face of a child who has been so deeply tormented that they cannot live life as they know it? Because I can almost guarantee that she has not...so how exactly are you supposed to be a family court judge if you have whatsoever no idea how to relate with children, because you have never had to be in that situation before. Instead of thinking about yourselves and condescending other people who have made differences in people's lives....why dont you get a life of your own and sit down and think about the situation at hand...because apparently you havent. Thank you!
  14. Julaan Derrick-Lawrence attorney 14/1/08 19:58
    I would like to respond to the many incorrect comments you received this date. I am one of the "girls" (thanks for the compliment) who testified concerning Ms. Floyd's character before the Judicial Merits Screening Committee. I have not posted an anonymous comment. Wouldn't make much sense to do so if I was willing to drive to Columbia and testify at a public hearing. I have read the report from the Judicial Merits Screening Committee and didn't see any reference to my testimony or the other attorney's testimony being a part of a "witch hunt". I have practiced law for 26 years, and I have known Ms. Floyd as an attorney for most of this time. The other attorney who testified has been practicing only one year. My testimony was my opinion concerning Ms. Floyd's character based upon the numerous cases I have tried against her over the years. I will not go into my testimony because Ms. Cook is correct, the transcript will be published. However, it is not published at this time, and if I had to guess it will not be published before the election. Further, Ms. Cook should know that last year, Ms. Floyd was running for a Georgetown County family court seat, and more likely than not, the South Carolina bar investigator called Georgetown attorneys. This time the bar investigator called myself (I was not called last time), and several other attorneys who I know personally in Horry County, where she mainly practices. The attorneys' comments regarding her character are in fact anonymous for the obvious reason that any attorney making a negative response would not want to be penalized if he or she found themselves appearing before her in Court. In regards to my personal life, which Ms. Floyd likes to comment about in documents she presents to court in her domestic cases, and that Ms. Cook likes to talk about here: Melissa Emery, the candidate who dropped out of this race, has NEVER represented me in any domestic matter or any other matter. However, Ms. Cook failed to mention Ms. Floyd was her attorney in her own domestic action. When I decided to testify in regards to Ms. Floyd's qualifications, I told Melissa that I planned to do so. She asked me not to testify if it was for the purpose of helping her. My comment to her and again to anyone reading this, I told her it did not matter to me who was running against her, I felt compelled to testify in regards to Ms. Floyd's behavior when she is the attorney on the other side of a case. Further, Melissa asked that I choose between helping her or testifying against Ms. Floyd in that I could not do both. That is the kind of person Melissa is. It is not surprising that Ms. Floyd's comrades would attack the integrity of Melissa without any basis or proof, just as I was attacked when I testified against her. Anyone who knows me personally or professionally knows that I need no more incentive to do something than what I feel is right. This is too important a matter to "play politics" with. It is imperative that good, honest, trustworthy attorneys (and there are those out there)rise to the top and become judges. I believe this has been the case in the past in the 15th Judicial Circuit because we have been blessed with excellent family court judges. I have tried to do my part to make sure this practice continues.
  15. Diogenes 14/1/08 20:11
    Ms. Cook, I think Earl hit a nerve because you sure did go for the jugular. That is usually the response of a person who knows the jig is almost up.

    When you said "you do not know have many calls were made by the member of the bar that called about Ms.Floyd as that information is priveledge and cannot be divulged to you. I sit on that committee and will tell your readers that Mr. Capp's comments are without basis." ... I believe the published Bar report said at least thirty interviews were conducted.

    He did not claim to know the number of interviews made, but based on what was published we can safety assume at least 30 interviews were made.

    You seem awful eager to act like these interviews didn't exist. To defend Ms. Floyd, you engage in personal attacks and deceptive language.

    At no point do you attempt to challenge that the Bar interviews were conducted, nor that there had to have been numerous concerns raised.

    I don't think you would want to be calling a sizable number of local attorneys liars, so instead you attack a third party to draw attention away from the findings of the Bar report. That's a pretty common tactic of liars ... and lawyers.

    Of which you are at least one.

    Your spelling and grammar is horrible - are you REALLY an attorney?
  16. janny 14/1/08 20:36
    Y'all,
    I am one of the folks who seriously objects to Ms. Floyd's possible "Judgeship"& provided an Affadavit to committee. I have never spent alot of time with attorneys in a specific case until the past 2 1/2 years. During my divorce proceedings (which still are not over after all this time), I had alot of contact with Ms. Floyd, as the opposing attorney.
    The majority of the time, I was embarassed for HER. It appeared that she was so focused on furthering her career that she "forgot" which client she was representing.
    The 2 major issues I have are:
    1) Personal views clouding legal definitions. (ie, she made a very erroneous judgement that I should be penalized for multiple marriages) ie. deserving no respect and/or rights. It was not just a "mistake" at the first hearing, but an ongoing project for her to continue to address multiple times EVEN AFTER THE JUDGE HAD WARNED HER THAT SHE WAS "OFF" legally!! It appeared to be a personal bias that she could not let go.
    2) Lack of professionalism- a) Depositions - she repeatedly told us & the legal mediator that she had provided documents to us, which she had not. We all thought we were crazy.
    Secondly, in Court - at trial, when presenting Exhibits to the Court, my attorney asked if we could also please receive the documents to which she was referring. At lunch break, she handed us a "mess" - unidentified Exhibits, half-printed pages, sideways & incomplete data, & finally, exhibits from another CLIENT ( so much for confidentiality!!!!
    If she employs these same traits/skills as a judge, God help us.
    Not a personal vendetta, but a plea for BETTER representation in this CIRCUIT!
    Sincerely,
    Jan Ford Bodkin
  17. Lois Eargle 14/1/08 21:19
    Earl Capps is trouble. He lives to see who he can upset and caused a lot of grief when I ran for Secretary of State.

    Anita, if you're reading this, call me about him.
  18. huntington west virginia moye 14/1/08 21:38
    I know a few of the people who commented on this. Keep it up I love to see these types get involved in trying to cover their ass when all they had to do was keep their mouths shut. Such a jealous bunch.
  19. Anonymous 14/1/08 21:53
    Earl, you sure know how to get people all worked up. Looks like the Jerry Springer show auditions to me.
  20. The Baliff 14/1/08 22:06
    This race is going to come down to a choice between Ronald Norton and Anita Floyd. Both are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Ms. Floyd's history speaks for itself while Mr. Norton campaigns to be a Family Court Judge much the same way he practices law and treats people dailey - with respect, with integrity, with a smile and with honor. Say what you want about Ms. Floyd and even Ms. Emery, who dropped out of the race, but Mr. Norton's character, legal ability, respect for fellow lawyers and litigants are beyond question. Mr. Norton is moving through this judicial race much like he practices law - without fanfare or a need to be noticed. No one has to defend anything Mr. Norton has said or anything he has done and I dare say you will find no one who will have anything critical to say about him. He is not a lighting rod just a member of the bar who exemplifies the best qualities, those we want and need in our judges, those found in Judge Abbott who's seat Mr. Norton will soon occupy.
  21. Anonymous 14/1/08 22:20
    The Baliff sounds like the only rational person who has something to say about this race tonight.

    Unlike those well-paid and highly-educated Myrtle Beach attorneys, Baliff sounds halfway intelligent and doesn't seem to need spell check.

    Maybe someone should offer this person a judgeship instead?
  22. Anonymous 14/1/08 23:55
    Earl is under a spell ... he's lying ... he's been duped ... has no idea what he's talking about ... that's pretty amazing.

    Let's rewind here and look at what the South Carolina Bar review committee said:

    After interviewing a minimum of 30 members of the Bar who have knowledge of the candidate’s integrity, competence and temperament and interviewing the candidate, the Committee reports the following information. Ms. Floyd has extensive experience in Family Court Matters. She is described as possessing above average legal knowledge and diligence. Concerns were raised by members of the Bar about Ms. Floyd’s temperament, professionalism, and candor. Based on the information and interview, the Committee reports that it is the collective opinion that the candidate is not qualified to serve as a Family Court Judge.

    Hhhmmmm ... that was "a minimum of 30 members of the Bar who have knowledge of the candidate’s integrity, competence and temperament and interviewing the candidate" ... from this, they conclusion was that it was "the collective opinion that the candidate is not qualified to serve as a Family Court Judge".

    So, he made THAT up? Two or three attorneys somehow swayed the South Carolina Bar to write that opinion?

    Yeah, right. I just don't buy horseshit like that.

    Earl busted your friend and now you're mad about it, that's what is going on here. The more you protest, the more obvious it becomes.

    You think we can't tell that the 1517 and 1546 postings weren't from the same person? Probably the same one who wrote most of the attacks on Earl.

    Just like that Moye guy said ... what we have here is some shady lawyers trying to browbeat, bullshit and obfuscate their way onto the bench.

    The most amazing thing I've learned from all this is that Myrtle Beach attorneys seem to be just as illterate, drama-hungry and crass as the rest of the white trash that infests that region.

    I can't tell if you're trying to challenge Earl's position, or qualify for a spot on Jerry Springer.
  23. Jerry Springer Catfightin' 15/1/08 00:00
    Earlier tonight, I was watching a a bunch of women brawling on the tube, while the crowd was yelling "JER-RY, JER-RY, JER-RY!!!"

    Earl, I've gotta hand it to you ... with this catfight you stirred up, I hope your readers are reading this, and yelling "BLOG-LAND, BLOG-LAND, BLOG-LAND!!!"

    I really think you outta have all these ladies meet in a boxing ring in Columbia this weekend and let them have at it.
  24. Anonymous 15/1/08 09:37
    How can she be a decent judge when she has never been a private GAL? Never been a mediator?
  25. Ghostbuster 15/1/08 10:05
    Give Norton a chance. At least his supporters don't seem to need their rabies shots.
  26. Anonymous 15/1/08 10:30
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
  27. Earl Capps 15/1/08 10:47
    Editor's note: The last comment was deleted for making personal attacks against a third party not related to the issue at hand.

    Thus far, two postings have been deleted: one which made personal commentary about attire and another about reasons for dismisal from employment of a third party.

    Few of these comments seek to address the fact that over thirty attorneys were interviewed and the overall impression from those interviews was that Ms. Floyd was not qualified.

    The Bar report said no less than thirty attorneys, so anyone who says this report is the product of one or two attorneys who supposedly have personal vendettas is, in our humble opinion, lying.

    Anyone whose postings do not address this issue, or engage in personal attacks or make unsupportable claims, will be deleted from here on out.

    You can disagree, but please keep it civil and respectful folks.
  28. the big sandy river 15/1/08 14:17
    come on man lets see what you deleted please
  29. Anonymous 15/1/08 15:46
    I read the original blog, which made sense. I've read all these comments, too. Many of them completely miss the point. It appears to me that there are currently TWO candidates for this Family Court judge spot. One of them is HIGHLY controversial, as this blog shows. If there is this much controversy over her on this blog alone, imagine the controversy surrounding her in the legal community and the community at large. The other candidate apparently has no controversy surrounding him whatsoever. This seems like a "no brainer" to me. Why would our elected representatives put such a controversial person in a seat of authority? They would only be opening themselves up for criticism at a later date. We need to have confidence in our judiciary, and in our elected officials, too. I hope those in Columbia will take a hard look at the two candidates and put the BEST person in this judge spot, not merely vote on "who knows who" or other such political nonsense.

    Also, it sounds from the comments like people provided negative testimony in person AGAINST one of the candidates. That sounds pretty serious to me. But no mention was made about anyone providing negative testimony about the other candidate. Again, this is a no-brainer. Let's see if our elected representatives can see that.
  30. Anonymous 15/1/08 15:53
    1546 - Maybe the point of slinging the mud and insanity was to draw attention from the points that Mr. Capps was trying to make in the first place.

    If you can't tell the truth, deny.

    If you can't deny, evade.

    If you can't evade, attack.

    All these steps were tried, but it sounds like Floyd is bleeding votes badly, and for good reason.

    The Bar is thirty lawyers, the JMSC is just ten appointed political hacks. Which sounds more objective to you?
  31. Regina B. Ward, Esq. 15/1/08 19:59
    Regina B. Ward, Attorney at Law

    I am disappointed that the persons who are trying to defend Ms. Floyd have referred to me and Ms. Derrick-Lawrence as “girls” who are basically acting out in “petty jealousy” and treat this very important event as though it were some silly schoolgirl cat fight. This is a serious event taking place – the election of a Family Court Judge.

    For everyone who attacks me (mostly those I’ve never met) and “thinks” they know my “agenda,” here it is straight from me:

    I sent a 96 page document to the commission which contained my 11 page Affidavit stating my allegations and all supporting documents. I did not “fabricate” anything against Ms. Floyd. I stated simple truths which came from my personal experience in dealing with her. I have had five cases with her and each, in my opinion, were made complex unnecessarily; a disservice, in my opinion, to both our clients. I also took the time to go to Columbia to express my view point. I did this, not for some seedy reason or agenda but, because I believe that a judge should possess the qualities of integrity, trustworthiness, and honesty. I am honored to be an attorney and I take my profession seriously. When I walk into the courtrooms of our most excellent Family Court judges, I am honored to be before them and I trust they will give a fair ruling based in law. Because of my professional experiences with Ms. Floyd, I do not believe she would be as honorable.

    I find it most intriguing that out of the past three years back to May 4, 2005 that each and every year, EXCEPT THIS YEAR, that the transcripts of the hearings have been published PRIOR to the Reports of Candidate Qualifications. Why is this year any different? I could do as my attackers do and suggest….hhhmmmm….must be some underlying agenda by somebody. Wonder who? I could suggest that it is because somebody doesn’t want the public or our legislators to see what was said there.

    I am trying to understand how the following can happen:

    1. Persons submitted negative affidavits about Ms. Floyd. They were disregarded because they were anonymous. In fact it was suggested that me and Ms. Derrick-Lawrence submitted them. FACT: I did not submit an anonymous affidavit. I appeared. I showed my face. I stated and publicized my name. I wish I would have submitted an affidavit but it probably would have been written off as “petty jealousy.”

    Step one was disregarded.

    2. There were several negative oral (and confidential) comments made to the bar of no less than 30 lawyers. The commission found she was NOT qualified.

    Step two was disregarded.

    3. Two lawyers (the girls), submitted sworn affidavits and testimony regarding Ms. Floyd’s practices. Despite the obvious evidence presented, OUR credibility was attacked as a diversion from the real issue – Ms. Floyd’s ability to serve as a Family Court Judge. We were not allowed to see the affidavits that were presented against us prior to or after the hearing. No one seemed to really care about the allegations against Ms. Floyd but more interested in making us look like we were “making it all up.”

    Step three was disregarded.

    MS. FLOYD IS DETERMINED TO BE QUALIFIED.

    The message: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. (Wizard of Oz)

    Ms. Cook (who I have never met) wrote, “the ‘real motivation’ for female lawyers who practice in Horry County is petty jealousy of the professional accomplishment of Ms. Floyd and the support of one of the other candidates.”

    Ms. Cook, you have never spoken to me and for you to determine my motivation without ever talking to me is absurd. Yes, I do support one of the other candidates – the one still in the race – Ronnie Norton. But I did not testify to bolster his candidacy. I testified because what Ms. Floyd does is, simply stated, wrong and the most honorable bench should not be given to her. Oh, and by the way, I do not understand why sexist comments are being made. None of this has anything to do with gender. It has everything to do with what is right and just and who is most qualified to serve as judge.

    As to the “opinion” of other Horry County lawyers, I cannot tell you how many have said they are glad that I had the courage to do what I did. One attorney said she wished she was brave enough to speak out against Ms. Floyd. Another attorney said he would liked to have testified but he could not risk being “black balled.” As I stated to the commission, everyone can take my opinion and do with it what they want – consider it, attack it, or reject it. I felt it was my duty to speak out and I hold firm to my opinion.

    Mr. Capps, thank you for your service to our community.
  32. Tookie 15/1/08 20:41
    Regina you are right, this isn't a cat fight,
    nor is this highschool,
    everyone needs to get over themselves,
    and understand the facts, not what they want to be facts.

    anita floyd is not qualified,
    get over it!!
    she just is not,
    the reports were not made up.

    this is a seirous situation,
    not something you will have to deal with for a while,
    ronnie norton is qualified and a muhc more respectable and a man of his word.

    i as well as others truly advise you to vote for Ronnie Norton.

    thanks.

    Earl Capps- good job buddy.
  33. Anonymous 15/1/08 21:47
    They either love you or they hate you, Earl. Seems as if you're doing what you always do best - keep it up.
  34. Anonymous 15/1/08 23:39
    Earl, we know who put you up to this and how much you were paid to do it. Judgeships are worth a lot of money in the right hands, and someone is using you to help get rich.

    We know who, and we know how much.

    Soon, everyone else will know what we know about this, and about you.

    We are sure you will delete this comment, but you will still get the message. Rest assured Floyd will get through and then it will be your turn.

    You have no idea who you're messing with, but you'll soon find out.
  35. Anonymous 16/1/08 09:21
    The last post exemplifies exactly why she shouldn’t be a judge. Vengeance and revenge upon all who have stood in her way. That is NOT judicial temperament. Thank you for a point well made.
  36. Speaker's Mafia 17/1/08 09:43
    Floyd can't be as bad some other Family Court Judges out there. Neese in Lexington comes to mind. She is made, so I will reserve my comments, but she strains this thing of ours with her last minute ways. Besides if Floyd, and the other judges who are tough to deal with are members of the Speaker's "family" and made, who cares what you or the bar think?

    In this thing of yours, you really don't count.
  37. Anonymous 22/1/08 16:22
    Put me down as one in opposition who is not signing their name. I have cases against Ms. Floyd and as is evident by the posts, there will be retribution against those who have opposed her if she goes on the bench. Her ethics are questionable to say the least and the findings of the bar screening echo the concerns of many.
  38. Anonymous 24/1/08 23:10
    Anita could never be as unfair and inept as David Maring was 25 years ago at my divorce trial. He had been in court with my attorney all day and was determined to hear my case... which lasted until midnight.Maring was so tired, he nodded off several times with his head in his hands.....he hated my attorney and made me pay. I will never forget the injustice of it all.
  39. Natalie H Johnson 20/8/08 13:56
    I realize that this particular subject is slightly "old", but I felt compelled to post a comment regardless of the age of the blog.

    I have personally witnessed Anita Floyd's lack of temperment and ethics.

    Let me tell you a bit about myself. I am the grandaughter of a judge and the niece of 7 lawyers. I am a reasonably well educated and intelligent 34 year old mother of 3. And I am divorced from a man who utilized the services of Anita Floyd in our family court proceedings.

    Ms. Floyd did not "prevail" in my case, so these comments are not the rantings of a disgrutled citizen who feels the need for vengeance. In fact, instead of vengeance, I have an odd sense of pity for Anita. If the way she practices law is indicative of her own vision of self-worth and the worth of those around her, she is surely filled with much emptiness.

    That being said, I would like to share with you the actual experiences and encounters I had with Ms. Floyd. These are not perceptions, but facts. And for the record, I am not an agitator, but I do feel the need to stand up for the residents of Horry County and help protect them from the potential of an unethical attorney becoming an unethical judge.

    1. Ms. Floyd was repeatedly tardy, both in person and with the creation of neccesary documents.

    2. She made changes to proposed orders within minutes of a court appearance and handed them to opposing counsel without even redlining them.

    3. She needlessly heightened the emotions of everyone in the room, including her client, on multiple occasions.

    4. She showed little to no regard for the 3 minor children involved in this case.

    5. She openly and verbally belittled me while in my presence.

    6. She belittled me in written communications.

    7. She was asked by the Mediator to draft a copy of the mediated agreement and then declined to do so in a timely manner. When she did finally draft the agreement, it was not what we had agreed to months before.

    8. Her displays of arrogance were evident to all those in attendance.

    9. She acted irresponsibly and uneccesarily "ran up the legal bills" of her own client.

    10. She operated with a bizarre "chip on her shoulder" type syndrome that showed her total lack of ability to separate her personal feelings from the judical process. My attorney, a long time Horry County family court litigator, commented on how unprofessional her personal attacks were.

    I could continue posting many, many examples of truly reprehensible behavior displayed by Ms. Floyd in my case and if the folks in Columbia ever need an affidavit from a concerned cititzen, I would be glad to share my personal insights.

    I don't know Ms. Floyd in any way outside of a courtroom or law office. I can't speak to her charcter or sense of duty with regards to how she deals with friends or neighbors or church members. But I can speak to how she handled, or more accurately, mishandled, the case involving my family.

    Judges are not divine. They make mistakes and have bad days. But we should be appointing judges who show prudence and fairness. Ms. Floyd has demonstrated a lack of these 2 very important traits.

    Sincerely,
    Natalie Johnson
  40. Anonymous 24/9/14 08:16
    I can tell you from personal experience that neither of the "girls" in question in this case have any right nor room to discredit anyone about ethics or lack thereof as from my experience neither of them possess any type of ethics or moral integrity, responsibility, or loyalty to their clients. I know this post is old and by now we all know that Mr. Norton won this election. However, after reading the comments, and while I don't know Ms. Floyd personally, I know her reputation is one "not to be f'd with" in a court room. As with most Horry County attorneys, the "girls" here are absolutely out for their pocket books not their clients. I chose so far as to having my family court matter moved to another county and hiring a lawyer from outside of Horry County who is a former naval JAG because for some reason ethics, honesty, and responsibility to a client do not matter in Horry County.

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

To post a comment without having a Blogger account, select "Name/URL", put your name in, but leave the URL line blank. Email me if you'd like to comment, but need help making it work.