Last fiscal year, of the 636 pending and new ethics complaints filed against S.C. judges, 490, or 77%, were dismissed, according to an annual Judicial Department report, though no detailed explanations for the dismissals or other specifics of those cases were given.
After The Nerve for years repeatedly reported on the state court’s secretive disciplinary system, the S.C. Supreme Court – led by Chief Justice John Kittredge, who became the administrative head of the state court system in 2024 – issued a written order last June to begin publishing summaries of dismissed judicial complaints.
Since that order, a total of 246 summaries of dismissed ethics complaints from July through December last year have been published on the Judicial Department’s website, a review by The Nerve found. The state’s fiscal year begins on July 1 and runs through the following June 30.
But while the summaries, nearly all of which were prepared by the state Office of Disciplinary Counsel or the Commission on Judicial Conduct – both of which are under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction – give explanations of why the complaints were dismissed, no judges who were the subject of the allegations were identified by name, county or judicial circuit – only by the type of court, per the Supreme Court’s order.
That means South Carolinians – who pay the salaries of the accused judges – have little way of knowing from the summaries about whether, for example, a judge has been the subject of multiple complaints filed by different individuals.
And because the filed written complaints typically are not released, the public for now has to rely primarily on the summaries, most of which are several sentences in length, for any details. No complainants were identified in the 246 summaries.
In contrast, state court lawsuits, which often involve claims of civil wrongdoing by at least one named party against at least one other identified party, generally are a matter of public record when filed – and remain public even if later dismissed.
S.C. judges are required to follow ethics rules under the state Code of Judicial Conduct, such as acting impartially and diligently, and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
Three of the 246 summaries of dismissed complaints involved an unnamed Supreme Court justice or all five justices, who also weren't identified, though the top court is comprised of five members. Kittredge’s annual salary is $245,286; associate justices make $233,606, according to the Judicial Department’s salary database.
The three summaries were prepared by a special committee created initially under an August 2024 Supreme Court order that established an “independent” five-member panel of private lawyers to investigate ethics complaints made against sitting justices.
The Nerve's review found that other dismissals involved complaints made against unidentified judges in the following lower courts, with the total number of summaries by court in parentheses: magistrate (68), circuit (57), family (43), probate (25), municipal (21), master-in-equity (5) and Administrative Law Court (4). In addition, another 20 dismissals involved complaints that didn't name the judge, involved a special referee, or dealt with other legal issues.
Circuit court judges make $221,925 annually, while family court judges earn $216,085, according to the judicial salary database.
Most of the summaries (214, or 87%, of the total 246) were provided by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), which is headed by Williams Blitch Jr. and investigates ethics complaints against judges and lawyers.
The 26-member Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC), chaired by “retired-active” Circuit Court Judge Thomas Cooper, can issue formal ethics charges and conduct hearings based on ODC investigations – though it rarely does, records show.
The Supreme Court has final say on any disciplinary sanctions of lower-court judges, which can range from public reprimands to suspension or removal from office, though serious sanctions are uncommon.
There were no disciplinary orders issued by the Supreme Court last fiscal year, which ran from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, for public reprimands, definite suspensions or removal from office, according to the annual disciplinary report.
The Judicial Department last week did not respond to The Nerve’s written questions about the posted dismissal summaries of ethics complaints.
Dismissals the norm
Most of the dismissed complaints in fiscal 2025 – 402, or 82%, of the total 490 dismissals – were by the ODC after an “initial review,” records show. That includes cases which “even if the allegations were true, the information provided in the complaints did not indicate misconduct or incapacity,” as well as complaints in which “there was insufficient evidence to determine possible misconduct by a Judge,” according to a description of the category in the annual disciplinary report.
Dismissals have been common over the years. The Nerve in 2021, for example, revealed that in previous 10 fiscal years, nearly 85% of the total 3,016 received and pending complaints were dismissed – the vast majority by the ODC, with the remainder dropped by CJC investigative panels.
Of the sanctions imposed during the 10-year period by the Supreme Court, reprimands – the least-serious public sanction – were the most common, with magistrates typically on the receiving end, The Nerve’s review found then.
Magistrates, who don’t have to be attorneys, are considered among the lowest-level judges in South Carolina, handling traffic offenses and other relatively minor criminal and civil cases.
A pending S.C. House bill would, among other things, require that newly appointed magistrates be lawyers in “good standing” with the South Carolina Bar, the state’s professional organization for lawyers.
Nothing to see here?
The Nerve’s review found that of the 214 summaries of complaints dismissed by the ODC, 106, or nearly half, were listed under the category of “lack of jurisdiction,” described as complaints that raised “solely legal issues” which were “better suited for appeal or other relief,” or failed to “allege an ethical violation.”
No judges were identified in any of the summaries; in some cases, the complainant didn't identify a judge, according to those summaries.
The remaining 108 summaries out of the total 214 were divided among the following categories:
- “Dismissal after evaluation” – An ODC determination that there was “no evidence of ethical misconduct, demonstrating an incapacity, or demonstrating an inability of the judge to participate in the disciplinary process.”
- “Dismissal for lack of specificity” – Complaints that failed to provide “the name of the judge and the identity was not able to be easily determined by review of public records,” or failed to provide “sufficient detail of the events to determine what allegations of ethical misconduct were being made by the Complainant.”
- “Dismissal after investigation” – Cases in which the ODC could not find “clear and convincing evidence to support the allegations of the complaint.” Generally, “clear and convincing” evidence is a legal standard of proof that falls between a “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For example, in one case in the “dismissal after investigation” category, the complainant alleged a magistrate judge “stated on the record that the opposing party had not successfully proven their case” but had asked the opposing party “what they desired as an outcome and, ultimately, ruled in the opposing party’s favor.” The judge denied the allegation and said the evidence and testimony “overwhelmingly supported the opposing party’s case.”
In another dismissal in that category, the complainant alleged a family court judge was “rude, impatient, and sarcastic,” and that the judge “showed bias against her and failed to maintain decorum.”
The ODC said a review of the hearing “did not support Complainant’s allegations,” and that after its investigation, the complainant was informed of the ODC's intent to dismiss the complaint “with the opportunity for review” by the CJC, though the complainant didn’t seek a review.
‘Wholly without merit’
The CJC in the last half of 2025 dismissed, after ODC investigations, 17 ethics complaints collectively made against circuit, master-in-equity, family, probate or associate probate, and magistrate judges from July through September; and another collective 12 complaints against circuit, family, probate, magistrate and Administrative Law Court judges from October through December, according to the summaries, which didn’t identify the judges.
Five of the dismissals from July through September “arise from the same highly contested family court matter,” though the summaries didn’t specify whether the allegations involved the same judge.
In that matter, the complainant alleged, among other things, that the judge “yelled, threatened, bullied, and ridiculed her” during a hearing, engaged in prohibited communications under court rules with the opposing party, and “divulged confidential details about Complainant’s case to a third party," according to the summaries.
The CJC each time concluded in those summaries that the complaint was “wholly without merit as Complainant lacked credibility and there was no basis in law or fact to support the allegations.”
In each of the five dismissed ethics cases against circuit judges over the six-month period in 2025, the CJC typically included this sentence: “Based on the evidence, the CJC concluded there is no factual basis for the complaint and dismissed the matter.”
Those complaints alleged various claims of bias and other misconduct, including an alleged threat made against a criminal defendant representing himself after reportedly refusing a public defender, according to the dismissal summaries.
Separately, the CJC during the period issued a “letter of caution” to a county magistrate over allegations of prohibited calls and emails under court rules with the opposing party. While the ODC investigation found no impermissible communications, it determined that the judge “does not have a practice of promptly notifying the other party of these permissible ex parte communications as required by the rule,” according to the summary.
“However,” the CJC concluded, “in light of the unique and challenging circumstances this Judge faces working in a small county with no support staff and Judge’s approximately 10 years of service on the bench with no prior disciplinary history, the CJC determined a letter of caution was appropriate in this matter.”
In 2019, The Nerve revealed that over the previous 17 years, more than 250 caution letters were issued – usually in secret – to judges statewide. The letters were the most common type of disciplinary action, which isn’t considered a formal sanction, taken on complaints that were not dismissed.
Last fiscal year, a CJC investigative panel issued nine caution letters, while the ODC gave out another four caution letters, according to the annual disciplinary report. In addition, the CJC’s investigative panel issued six “confidential" admonitions, with the Supreme Court itself producing one “confidential” admonition.
No judges who were subject of those actions were identified in the annual report.
The report noted that caution letters were primarily issued to judges “related to failing to place their judicial duties above other activities”; failing to be “patient, dignified, and courteous to those with whom the judge interacted"; or failing to “dispose of all matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly.”
Admonitions were issued to judges for “acting in ways that undermined confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary … as well as failing to be courteous and patient with those interacting with the Court,” according to the annual report.
No other specifics about the allegations were given in the report for either the admonitions or caution letters.
Supreme misconduct?
The three dismissed ethics complaints against unnamed sitting Supreme Court justices from last October through December were made by unidentified inmates. The allegations involved various claims of perjury or violation of constitutional rights, including “unlawful imprisonment.”
Each of the dismissal summaries included the following sentence: “Based upon the applicable law and procedural rules, the Committee concluded the information contained in the complaint, together with publicly available information, would not constitute misconduct under the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
Instead of being investigated by the ODC, the filed complaints against the justices were handled by the special committee of lawyers initially established by the high court under the August 2024 order issued shortly after Kittredge became the chief justice.
Under that order, the five-member committee appointed at the time was comprised of voluntary lawyers who are “independent and not employed by the Judicial Branch,” though two of the original members of the panel were former ODC chiefs who worked for the Supreme Court, as The Nerve reported then.
The committee currently is chaired by former ODC head John Nichols, according to an amended order issued on Jan. 9 this year.
The initial 2024 order came more than 14 years after The Nerve first revealed that the Supreme Court was allowed to investigate itself – contrary to a 2008 written recommendation by an American Bar Association (ABA) review team.
And, as The Nerve pointed out after the 2024 order was issued, Supreme Court members could still discipline a wayward fellow justice even with the creation of the “independent” committee.
In an amended August 2025 order that rescinded the 2024 order, the court kept the special lawyer committee plus created a separate, five-member panel comprised of the chief judge of the S.C. Court of Appeals – the state’s second-highest court – and the four most senior associate Court of Appeals judges to decide whether to issue any sanctions or take other disciplinary action against sitting Supreme Court justices for ethical violations.
After the initial 2024 Supreme Court order was issued, The Nerve revealed that over the previous 22 years, at least 90 ethics complaints were filed against appellate judges, though the annual disciplinary reports didn’t specify whether the accused judges were Supreme Court or Court of Appeals members, or give any specifics of the allegations.
Last fiscal year, fewer than 3% of all opened ethics cases involved appellate judges; the annual disciplinary report noted that the special committee of lawyers dismissed “one matter against one (Supreme Court) justice,” though no details were given.
When the ABA’s 2008 report on South Carolina’s judicial and lawyer disciplinary system was issued, the state’s high court was led by Jean Toal, a former S.C. House member who joined the court in 1988 and became chief justice in 2000. Toal was involved in hit-and-run property damage incidents in 2001 and 2007 while she was the state’s top judge, according to media reports at the time.
The CJC cleared Toal of any ethical wrongdoing in the 2001 incident, though it was unknown whether a formal ethics investigation was done in the 2007 case, as The Nerve reported in 2010. A court rule bans accused justices from participating in their own disciplinary cases.
Toal retired from the Supreme Court in 2015 but subsequently was appointed by then-Chief Justice Donald Beatty to serve as a special circuit court judge assigned to handle civil asbestos cases.
Critics have accused Toal of favoring plaintiffs in those cases, as The Nerve previously has reported. In its latest annual “Judicial Hellholes” report, the American Tort Reform Foundation ranked South Carolina No. 3 in the nation, contending that since 2020 when the state first landed on its list, Toal’s rulings in those cases have “become increasingly extreme.”
Brundrett is the news editor of The Nerve (www.thenerve.org). Contact him at 803-394-8273 or
