Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In the Matter of Darrell Scott Fisher, West Greenville Summary Court

Supreme Court of South Carolina

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: 2025-002238

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

In this judicial disciplinary matter, the Court imposes a definite suspension.

Combined Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of Darrell Scott Fisher, West Greenville
Summary Court.
Appellate Case No. 2025-002238

Opinion No. 28321
Submitted February 20, 2026 – Filed March 18, 2026

DEFINITE SUSPENSION

Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr., and
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Kristina Jones Catoe,
both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Darrell Scott Fisher, of Greenville, pro se.

PER CURIAM: In this judicial disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office
of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by
Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Judicial Disciplinary
Enforcement contained in Rule 502 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules
(SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct and consents to the
imposition of a confidential admonition, a public reprimand, or a definite
suspension of up to thirty days. We accept the Agreement and suspend
Respondent from office for thirty days. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement,
are as follows.

I.

On June 24, 2024, Respondent conducted a hearing on a complaint and motion for
a restraining order. During the hearing, Respondent referred to the defendant by
his first name on numerous occasions. At the thirty-eight-minute mark of the
hearing, Respondent admitted to knowing the defendant, stating, "I've known that
man for thirty years." Respondent did not make a ruling on the plaintiff's motion,
stating that the motion would remain active for six months. At the conclusion of
the hearing, Respondent gave the plaintiff instructions in reference to any actions
involving the defendant, stating "don't hesitate to come up here and ask for
me . . . . You let them know who you are and that I heard a case involving you
involving a restraining order, go get me and we'll talk."

At the fifty-two-minute mark in the hearing, Respondent released the plaintiff and
her witnesses. Respondent then began a conversation with the defendant.
Respondent stated, "[Defendant], you have got to stop. I had everything I needed to
issue a restraining order. I don't want to do it. You have to stop." When the
defendant mentioned that he might appear before Respondent in the future for a
similar issue involving a different plaintiff, Respondent ended the recording.

Respondent acknowledges that his conversation with the defendant constitutes an
ex parte communication as the discussion was directly related to a case pending
before the court and was held outside the presence of the plaintiff in the case.

II.

Respondent acknowledges that his conduct violates the following provisions of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 501, SCACR: Canon 1 (requiring a judge to
uphold the integrity of the judiciary); Canon 1A (requiring a judge to maintain and
personally observe high standards of conduct); Canon 2 (requiring a judge to avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities); Canon 2A
(requiring a judge to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in
the integrity of the judiciary); Canon 3 (requiring a judge to perform the duties of
judicial office impartially); Canon 3B(5) (requiring a judge to perform judicial
duties without bias or prejudice); Canon 3B(7) (prohibiting a judge from initiating,
permitting or considering ex parte communications or other communications made
to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending
proceeding); Canon 3E(1) (requiring a judge to disqualify himself in a proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned); and Canon 3F
(requiring a judge to follow a specified remittal procedure if he wishes to provide
the parties an opportunity to proceed without a delay if they wish to waive the
disqualification). Respondent also admits that his misconduct constitutes grounds
for discipline under Rule 7(a)(1), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR (providing a violation
of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a ground for discipline).
As noted, Respondent agrees to the imposition of a confidential admonition, a
public reprimand, or a definite suspension of up to thirty days as a sanction for his
misconduct. Respondent's disciplinary history includes a 2008 letter of caution
citing Canons 2A, 3, 3B(2), and 3B(7). See Rule 2(q), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR
(providing a letter of caution may be considered in a subsequent disciplinary
proceeding against the judge if the caution or warning contained therein is relevant
to the misconduct in the second proceedings).

In mitigation, Respondent submitted a letter expressing remorse and emphasizing
his forty-three years of service as a judge in the municipal and summary courts of
Greenville County. Respondent explains that he plans to retire in 2026 and asks
the Court for leniency in imposing a sanction.

III.

We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a suspension from judicial duties. See
In re Stocker, 362 S.C. 486, 490-96, 608 S.E.2d 865, 867-70 (2005) (imposing a
thirty-day definite suspension for engaging in biased conduct, engaging in ex parte
communications, and failing to remain faithful to the law). We therefore accept
the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and suspend Respondent from his
judicial duties for thirty days from the date of this opinion. Within thirty days,
Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this
matter by ODC and the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.
KITTREDGE, C.J., FEW, JAMES, HILL and VERDIN, JJ., concur.