(Columbia) Jan. 22, 2003 - The South Carolina
Supreme Court is taking on an issue that has
created deep divisions in South Carolina and the
nation's legal community. At a public hearing
Tuesday, Chief Justice Jean Toal questioned why
so many defense lawyers are against a ban
on secret settlements.
The court heard from more than 20
speakers, including many opposing the proposal
known as Rule 38 which would ban secret
settlements in the state's courts.
Advocates of the ban on secret settlements
included a lawyer for news organizations who
suggested that the public has a right to see how
its tax money works. A Lexington County woman
who wishes she could have seen the malpractice
settlements against her husband's doctor before
his botched open-heart surgery also spoke for
the proposal.
Supporters say secrecy threatens public
safety and protects those who do wrong, "The
public has an absolute right to know what takes
place in its courtrooms, what takes place when
judges issue orders, and the idea of doing that
secretly or sweeping the truth under the rug and
concealing it from others is, I suggest,
abhorrent."
"It is a practical rule that will save us
from having to get in a conflict situation
where, on the one hand, I'm weighing the
interest of the public; I'd really like the
public to know about this product or this
condition. And, on the other hand, I want
my client to recover and have what they
deserve."
But, family law attorney's say opening some
court reveal too much personal information and
increase the problem of identity theft,
"Frequently you have to file or offer as
exhibits account statements or list account
numbers. tax returns. Those things are
frequently put into evidence, and they are the
exact tools that an identity thief needs to
accomplish his or her crime."
Medical professionals say already high
malpractice insurance rates would soar even
more, "I just think that this will make this
system much worse. I think that we're
heading for a crisis in South Carolina just like
other states."
One speaker even says the clergy would suffer
if settlement information went public, "The
majority of the ministers in south Carolina, the
bishops, the Moslems, the Hindus - everybody
wants confidentiality."
The state's federal judges approved a similar
ban last year, but family and corporate
attorneys as well as lawyers representing
doctors and insurance companies asked the state
Supreme Court to consider something other than
the complete ban on confidential settlements.
Toal plans to submit then ban to the
Legislature next month, which must approve the
measure by a three-fifths vote. South Carolina's
12 federal judges have already approved a ban on
confidential settlements.
By Jack
Kuenzie
updated 7:39am by Chris
Rees
