On Saturday, July 5, 2025, The Post and Courier published an opinion piece addressing concerns about judicial misconduct in South Carolina. The editorial highlights the longstanding issues regarding the transparency of the state’s Supreme Court’s judicial disciplinary system, which has been criticized for operating as a “black box.”
For nearly three decades, reforms enacted in 1997 have allowed individuals to publicly discuss their grievances against judges, requiring that complaints be made public if the Commission on Judicial Conduct recommends action beyond a private reprimand. Despite these reforms, the editorial points out that no investigations against judges in the Family Court, Circuit Court, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court have been made public during this time. The commission has not deemed any complaint serious enough to warrant escalation to the Supreme Court.
This lack of transparency has raised suspicions that the court may be concealing instances of judicial misconduct. The editorial emphasizes that many complaints are dismissed without public knowledge, and the reasons for these dismissals remain largely undisclosed. Previously, individuals filing complaints believed they were prohibited from discussing their cases, further complicating public understanding of the disciplinary process.
In a recent development, the South Carolina Supreme Court has introduced a new procedure aimed at improving transparency. Starting July 1, the court’s disciplinary counsel and the attorney for the Commission on Judicial Conduct will be required to summarize complaints that are either dismissed or result in private disciplinary actions. Although the judges involved will remain anonymous, the summaries will indicate which court each judge serves on. These summaries are set to be posted quarterly on the court’s website, beginning November 1.
The editorial suggests that this move could provide valuable insights into how complaints are managed and help clarify ethical standards for judges. It is seen as a step toward enhancing public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, a goal shared by Chief Justice John Kittredge.
Currently, data indicates that the vast majority of complaints against judges are dismissed, with no upper court judge facing public sanction since Circuit Judge Rodney Peeples in 1988. The lack of accessible information has fueled ongoing concerns about the integrity of the judicial disciplinary process. The editorial underscores the importance of the court providing adequate summaries that allow the public to understand the nature of complaints and the rationale behind their dismissal.
The court previously acknowledged that transparency is essential to ensure public trust in the judiciary, stating that an informed public is crucial for confidence in the legal system. The new procedure is seen as a potential means to achieve this goal, although its effectiveness will depend on the quality and thoroughness of the summaries provided.
Source: The Post and Courier
