James Smith got a $200,000 deal courtesy of AG Wilson; now he wants another from the legislators.
Today is the day for 'electing' judges in South Carolina. As one of just two states where the legislators, many of whom are trial lawyers, pick judges, this is how it is done - at least for now.
Among the more controversial appointments, a/k/a elections, this year is that of James Smith, the ‘chosen’ nominee of the uni-party as well as the Democrats for the resident Circuit Court judgeship in the 5th judicial circuit. FitsNews reported earlier this year that threats were made to the other candidate in order to pave the way for the very liberal Mr. Smith, a personal friend of AG Wilson, to receive such a coveted position.
Friendship has its benefits. Especially in SC.
By all accounts, Smith has essentially been doing various quasi law-related jobs for the past few years, yet General Wilson found him imminently qualified for a lucrative state contract when Special Counsel was retained for the South Carolina Opioid Settlement.
This appointment allowed Smith to be paid directly via an allocation of the South Carolina Opioid Fee Fund per the Order of Judge Perry Gravely dated January 4, 2023 (2019CP4004521). The result for Mr. Smith was $200,909.92.
No Conflicts of Interest. Ever.
The following is an excerpt from Mr. Smith’s contract:
Special Counsel represents that they have no conflict of interest with the State of South Carolina, its agencies, or subdivisions at this time. Special Counsel agrees that if a conflict of interest, potential or otherwise, arises, as defined by Rule 407, Rules of Professional Conduct, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, during the term of this litigation, then Special Counsel will give timely written notice to the Attorney General. Special Counsel must request and obtain a written authorization from the Attorney General prior to undertaking any representation against or adverse to the State of South Carolina, its offices, boards, departments, or institutions during the term of this appointment.
What seems especially noteworthy is that General Wilson has been outspoken about Smith’s representation of him that he claimed was performed for free (though records detailed otherwise). As many South Carolinians will recall, the litigation that Wilson would probably like to forget involved Solicitor David Pascoe wiping the floor with him in South Carolina’s highest court.
To summarize,
Attorney James Smith (per General Wilson) did not get paid for his representation of Wilson when the AG was ostensibly abusing his authority over Solicitor Pascoe as the solicitor sought to rein in SC corruption.
But James Smith did get paid - and well - as part of the opioid contract after being added as a ‘special counsel’ by Wilson who has publicly - and privately - campaigned for Smith’s appointment as a SC judge.
Could it be construed that General Wilson is (still) paying Smith via a special counsel gig and/or some backroom dealmaking for a resident judgeship, as in a quid pro quo?
Perhaps the Senate Ethics Commission will consider.