A bill introduced in the South Carolina Senate would tighten oversight of retired judges seeking reappointment by the state’s Chief Justice.
Senate Bill 622, sponsored by State Sen. Wes Climer (R-York), proposes amending state law to require the Judicial Merit Selection Commission to review retired judges every two years instead of every four.
The measure would also mandate a retention vote by the General Assembly before any such appointment is approved.
“The Chief Justice may appoint a retired justice or judge only after the retired judge has received a majority of the vote of the members of the General Assembly voting in joint session approving his eligibility to serve,” the bill reads.
The bill was introduced April 29 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In a recent op-ed for the Post & Courier, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, writing in support of S.622, highlighted the growing national perception that South Carolina’s courts—especially its asbestos docket—are prone to lawsuit abuse, harming the state’s business climate.
He linked these concerns to multimillion-dollar verdicts and rising tort costs, which he said burden consumers and discourage investment.
“In 2023 alone, tort costs in South Carolina reached the equivalent of $738 per person, resulting in $2.4 billion in lost personal income,” he wrote. “These costs aren’t absorbed by businesses — they’re passed on to consumers, making goods and services more expensive for families across the state.”
Wilson has endorsed S.622.
“Business owners I’ve spoken with consistently raise concerns about frivolous lawsuits that force companies to settle out of court simply to avoid drawn-out litigation,” Wilson wrote. “They view these lawsuits as attempts to fleece companies for large payouts, rather than legitimate claims for justice. This perception damages South Carolina’s reputation as a business-friendly state and deters companies from investing here.”
He emphasized that while most judges act with integrity, the perception of bias and lack of accountability undermines public trust. He argues the reforms posed by S.622 would enhance fairness, transparency and the state’s reputation among businesses.
Indeed, South Carolina has one of the worst reputations in the nation when it comes to judicial fairness.
The state was ranked no. 3 on the American Tort Reform Association’s (ATRA) annual “Judicial Hellholes” report.
ATRA noted that since former chief justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Jean Toal, took over South Carolina’s asbestos docket in 2017, the state has become a national hotspot for aggressive asbestos litigation, marked by a sharp rise in filings and pro-plaintiff rulings.
“Before Judge Toal’s appointment, ‘the state was not a very active asbestos jurisdiction,’ according to consulting firm KCIA wrote. “Beginning in 2019, however, the number of asbestos filings took off under Judge Toal. On a percentage basis, the number of new asbestos cases filed in South Carolina in recent years ‘is one of the largest increases in the nation.’”
Critics allege Toal routinely favors plaintiffs, imposes excessive sanctions on corporate defendants, and expands insurer liability through frequent use of court-appointed receivers.
The state’s high court has largely upheld her controversial rulings, reinforcing a permissive evidentiary standard while encouraging out-of-state firms to flood the courts with new claims.
ATRA notes this environment has led to what some describe as a “desperately incestuous” legal system that benefits connected law firms and undermines judicial impartiality.
S. 622 comes on the heels of repeated inquiries into Toal.
Toal, 81, continues to preside over asbestos cases and high-profile matters despite a state law mandating judicial retirement at age 72.
Critics argue her extended tenure—enabled through part-time appointments and per-trial pay—undermines the spirit of retirement rules and raises concerns over judicial impartiality, particularly in complex asbestos litigation involving foreign companies.
Toal has faced recusal requests and scrutiny for favoring plaintiffs, while also benefiting from opaque judicial compensation practices.
Her long-standing influence and post-retirement roles have reignited debate over transparency and judicial accountability in South Carolina’s courts.
Legal Newsline reported that Toal has a reputation for being “overly generous to plaintiffs in asbestos cases” and has drawn criticism for significantly inflating jury awards using a rarely applied judicial power known as nisi additur.
In a recent case, Toal raised a $300,000 jury verdict to $1.9 million.
“(Toal) is making defendants pay whatever she feels, despite what juries and federal courts say, and was just given approval to do so by the state Supreme Court,” Legal Newsline‘s Daniel Fisher wrote of Toal in Aug. 2024.
