On Sunday, August 18, 2024, The Nerve reported that South Carolina’s Supreme Court had recently approved changes to how ethics complaints against its own justices would be handled.
According to the investigative report, under the previous system, the Supreme Court had ultimate authority over disciplining any judge within the state’s judicial system, including any potential ethics complaints filed against its own members. This arrangement had raised concerns about a lack of independence and the potential for even the appearance of impropriety.
To address these issues, in an order dated August 1st the Supreme Court established a new “Independent Committee for the Supreme Court” that will now be responsible for investigating any ethics complaints made against sitting justices. This committee is comprised of five volunteer lawyers who are “independent and not employed by the Judicial Branch.” However, the report notes that the committee is chaired by two former heads of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, who previously answered directly to the Supreme Court.
While establishing this new avenue for handling justice complaints, questions still remain about the full extent of reforms. The article states the order did not specify whether the Supreme Court would maintain the final say over any potential discipline resulting from such investigations. It’s also unclear if basic details about ethics allegations would be promptly made public along with official responses from accused judges, given the court system’s general rules requiring secrecy around such matters.
The Nerve reached out to Chief Justice John Kittredge for clarification on these outstanding issues but did not receive a response prior to publication. The article provides background on previous recommendations from the American Bar Association for a fully independent body to handle Supreme Court discipline matters due to concerns about appearances of impropriety.
Additional context in the report outlines the opaque nature of South Carolina’s overall judicial discipline process. While over 5,000 complaints have been filed against judges over the past two decades, records show dismissals are the norm and virtually no appellate judges have faced public sanctions. The system also relies heavily on private “letters of caution” that remain unseen by the public.
In summarizing its findings, The Nerve investigation raises doubts about whether the limited judicial branch reforms approved will truly provide independence and transparency when it comes to holding the state’s highest court justices accountable for ethical behavior. According to the report, uncertainties remain around these important considerations of fairness, impartiality, and appropriate oversight.
Source: The Nerve
