The S.C. Supreme Court on Friday issued a new rule strictly limiting secret settlements in state courts, although it backed off a blanket ban.

The rule will take effect in 90 days unless it's killed by a three-fifths vote in each house of the Legislature.

Chief Justice Jean Toal said Friday she is confident lawmakers will support the rule.

"I think this represents the overwhelming feeling of legislators I've talked to," she said. "They want an open court system."

"I think you will find general acceptance in the General Assembly," said House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, who is a lawyer. "It appears (the Supreme Court) has taken a very thoughtful approach to it."

The rule sets strict guidelines for state judges to approve secret settlements or seal documents used in lawsuits.

For example, judges must consider why the public's health or safety would be "best served by sealing the documents."

The rule allows judges to keep secret "private financial matters" and "sensitive custody issues." Those issues were raised in written comments to the five-member Supreme Court and during a rare public hearing last week.

Toal said her court "tried to balance our preference for open proceedings .‘.‘. with legitimate private concerns."

Most lawsuits are settled privately, outside the court.

The rule issued Friday doesn't apply to these types of private agreements, although Toal said judges would have "final say" if parties wanted to enforce the contracts.

Plaintiff's lawyers, academics and others support a general ban on court-sanctioned, secret settlements. They say sealed settlements often prevent the public from learning sooner about health or safety hazards.

As examples, they point to the controversies surrounding defective Firestone tires and priests who abuse children.

Supporters also contend the public should be allowed to know the details of settlements approved by tax-financed courts.

Under the rule issued Friday, state judges would be banned from approving secret settlements involving public agencies.

"This rule is intended to ensure that the constitutional principle of open courts is fulfilled," Toal said.

Doctors, insurers, lawyers who defend businesses and family attorneys oppose a mandatory ban on settlements. They say secrecy often is needed to protect such things as trade secrets or sensitive financial or medical information.

Family lawyers say, for example, that divorcing couples could be the victims of identity theft if court-required financial declarations are made public.

Columbia lawyer Thomas Salane, who represents the South Carolina branch of the American Insurance Association, said Friday he thinks the rule adopted by the Supreme Court addresses those concerns.

"I think it's a fair rule," he said. "I think they're recognizing there may be some legitimate reasons why a court might acquiesce to a party's request to seal a settlement agreement or a portion of a settlement agreement."

The rule originally proposed by the court read, "No settlement agreement filed with the court shall be sealed pursuant to this rule."

That language mirrored a rule adopted by South Carolina's federal judges last year, Salane said. But another federal court rule allows federal judges to disregard the ban in individual cases, he pointed out.

The final draft of the state court rule doesn't contain the blanket-ban language. Instead, it sets up a two-step process for judges to approve and seal settlements brought to the court.

In the past, judges routinely consented to secret settlements, Toal said.

"I think this rule makes it clear those days are over," she said.