Judge's ruling under scrutiny

In her 16 years as a family court judge, F.P. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews has presided over the state's first drug court aimed to get young offenders back on track.

She has quietly handled hundreds of divorce and custody cases and rarely has made news. The Mount Pleasant mother of two also has earned respect from many lawyers who have argued in her courtroom, and she serves as the vice chairwoman of the South Carolina Commission for Judicial Conduct.

Today, however, Segars-Andrews finds herself being judged, with her future on the bench hanging in the balance.

At issue is a complicated ethical question over whether she erred three years ago by not disqualifying herself from ruling in a Clarendon County divorce case.

Her detractors feel she made a serious misstep by ruling in that case even though one of its lawyers had shared in a significant settlement with her husband's law partner. They have persuaded the majority of the South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission to find her unqualified to remain on the bench next year.

Her supporters disagree, noting that the issue was taken to the S.C. Court of Appeals, which ruled that Segars-Andrews showed no evidence of bias in that divorce case and had a duty to rule in it. They are hoping the commission will reconsider its decision when it meets again next month.

The unusual case raises the question of how far a judge should go to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

It also shows how those unhappy with their outcomes in the legal system increasingly are choosing to take their complaints to the political arena.

A contested divorce

The divorce between William R. Simpson and Becky H. Simpson of Manning was like many others where significant property and child custody were at stake.

The wrinkle came near the end of the two-day hearing, as Segars-Andrews was preparing her final ruling on the division of property and attorney's fees.

William Simpson's lawyer, Steven McKenzie, asked her to recuse herself from the case. He said Becky Simpson's lawyer, James McLaren, had been involved in a lucrative case with the judge's husband's law firm, Andrews and Shull.

"I did not think about that," she told the attorneys, according to the transcript. "You all have to retry the case."

McLaren then told her the rules need to show she was biased or prejudiced, "and they have shown neither." He said she was unaware of the dealings he had with her husband's law partner when she tried the case.

But Segars-Andrews didn't appear to buy his argument, saying, "It still should have been disclosed, and I can't, at this point remedy that."

She then told lawyers that she would be glad to look at any paperwork they wanted to give her regarding a potential conflict, and once she looked that over, she changed her mind and ruled on the case, giving Becky Simpson 40 percent of the marital estate, about $214,000, plus $83,000 in attorney's fees.

William Simpson was displeased.

"She actually gave my ex-wife 60 percent of everything I owned, that I was able to make a living on to provide for my family," he said, adding that her refusal to step down from the case was disappointing. "I have no faith in the judicial system as it goes right now."

The fallout

William Simpson and McKenzie appealed the settlement and Segars-Andrews' decision to remain on the case to the S.C. Court of Appeals, but they lost on both counts -- in unanimous rulings -- in February 2008.

"We find Judge Segars-Andrews' remarks about her concern for not disclosing the information at the beginning of the hearing do not show any bias or prejudice but instead show her sensitivity to any apprehension each side might have in her ability to make a fair and impartial ruling in the case," the court ruled.

"My client just ran out of money. He couldn't have gone to the Supreme Court," McKenzie said of Simpson. "He's just a farmer."

Instead, he waited until Segars-Andrews would be evaluated for reappointment by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, a 10-member group of state lawmakers and others who decide if a person is qualified to be a judge.

In South Carolina, state lawmakers elect judges, but since 1996, candidates for the bench first have to be found qualified by the commission.

The commission listened to William Simpson, McKenzie and others on the matter for hours. They weighed whether Segars-Andrews' alleged conflict of interest affected her judgment and whether she lived up to the state code of judicial conduct that states: "A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities."

In the end, the commission voted, 9-1, to find Segars-Andrews unqualified.

The vote was remarkable, not only because she is a respected judge with 16 years of experience, but because when most candidates learn that the commission is inclined to vote against them, they opt to withdraw quietly.

The next step

Segars-Andrews, who is up for appointment to a six-year term next year, declined comment for this story, but in her Nov. 9 letter to the commission, she acknowledged her mistake and said all she can do now is offer William Simpson an apology.

"If I had understood then what I understand now, I would have recused myself, even though I'm not legally required to do so," she wrote. "This difficult and unfortunate situation has helped me understand that while it is essential for me to judge with integrity, to properly discharge my responsibilities I must do everything reasonable within my control to demonstrate to the litigants that they have been afforded a fair trial, by an impartial and honest judge."

Meanwhile, many lawyers with the Charleston County BAR have been working to show their support for her. The South Carolina Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers also unanimously passed a resolution in support, and its president-elect, Robert Rosen, called her "one of the best judges in the state and one of the most highly respected."

State Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said the commission will meet Dec. 2 in Columbia to decide whether to reopen her case.

"If the commission were to do it, then it means the commission is willing to back off from its previous decision to see if there's a reason to change her position," McConnell said. "That's why I can't say any more. We're not finished with it."

If the commission decides to hear more evidence, then it would hold another hearing, possibly next month. If not, then its final report, expected in January, will make it impossible for lawmakers to appoint her to another term.

McConnell said the commission is seeing more such complaints, as residents unhappy with a judge's performance seek redress through political, rather than legal, means.

The commission's powers were strengthened in 1996, and word gradually has dribbled out.

"This is a manifestation of what is occurring," McConnell said. "Over the years, more and more people have started to testify against candidates."

Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771 or at rbehre@postandcourier.com.