On Saturday, March 21, 2026, The Post and Courier reported that the South Carolina Supreme Court issued three separate disciplinary actions against current and former members of the judiciary on Wednesday, March 20, 2026. The actions, which included public reprimands and a suspension, have sent ripples throughout the state’s courthouses.
Retired Spartanburg County Magistrate James Crook received a public reprimand for inappropriate behavior towards a female employee. According to the court’s order, Crook showed the employee sexually suggestive pictures, questioned her about the age and appearance of women in the photos, and then declared “I’m not a pervert” after she left his office.
Former Greenwood County Equity Court Judge Curtis Clark was also publicly reprimanded. Clark’s reprimand stemmed from a 2022 scandal uncovered by The Post and Courier’s investigative team, which revealed that Clark had foreclosed on and auctioned off property to family members, indirectly benefiting himself. He also misrepresented his involvement in these cases to the state’s judicial screening commission.
Greenville County Magistrate Darrell Scott Fisher received a suspension and a public reprimand for engaging in an overly friendly conversation with a man he had just declined to issue a restraining order against. The court deemed this an inappropriate ex parte communication.
These actions come after the S.C. Supreme Court’s decision last year to increase transparency in how the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the court handle complaints against judges. Chief Justice John Kittredge designed the new regime, and it was endorsed by all four of his colleagues.
Previously, only the number of dismissed complaints, private letters of caution, and confidential admonitions was released to the public. The new system requires Disciplinary Counsel to prepare summaries of allegations in all resolved cases, which the chief justice reviews for completeness before publication. While the judges’ names are not released, the court they sit on is identified.
The goal of this increased transparency is twofold: to increase public confidence in the judiciary by demonstrating that most complaints lack merit and to educate judges on what constitutes acceptable behavior. This is particularly important for magistrates, who are politically appointed and not required to be lawyers.
The court’s recent actions suggest a potential third outcome of the increased transparency: tougher punishments for cases that might have previously been overlooked. This is particularly relevant in cases involving retired judges, where the court’s options for disciplinary action are limited.
In the cases of Clark and Crook, the court noted that a public reprimand was “the strongest punishment we can give Respondent, given the fact that he has already resigned his duties as a judge,” implying that they would have taken stronger action if possible.
Source: The Post and Courier
