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 Former Judge James E. Crook, Spartanburg County Magistrate Court

Supreme Court of South Carolina

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: 2025-002237

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (10.2K)

• PDF

Syllabus

In this judicial disciplinary matter, the Court imposes a public reprimand.

Combined Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of Former Judge James E. Crook,
Spartanburg County Magistrate Court
Appellate Case No. 2025-002237

Opinion No. 28320
Submitted February 20, 2026 – Filed March 18, 2026

PUBLIC REPRIMAND

Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr., and
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Phylicia Yvette Christine
Coleman, both of Columbia, for the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel.

Scott Franklin Talley, of Talley Law Firm, P.A., of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.

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 (RJDE) contained in Rule 502 of the South Carolina Appellate Court
Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct and consents
to a confidential admonition or a public reprimand. Respondent has also resigned
his position and agrees never to seek or accept a judicial office in South Carolina in
the future. We accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand Respondent.

I.

On October 14, 2024, J.J. reported to work at the Spartanburg County Magistrate
Court. When Respondent arrived, he made small talk with J.J. then went to his
office. J.J. entered Respondent's office to place information for upcoming bond
arraignments on Respondent's desk. As she was leaving, Respondent asked J.J.,
"How well [sic] are you at guessing someone's age?" Respondent then proceeded
to show J.J. a photo of a woman posing in a position with her buttocks facing the
camera. Respondent showed J.J. an additional photo of the same woman in her bra
and panties, posing on her knees, with her legs spread and arms above her head.
J.J. told Respondent the woman looked to be in her 50s or 60s. Respondent
laughed and indicated the woman looked like his ex. J.J. left Respondent's office
and returned to her desk. Respondent called J.J.'s name and told her, "I just want
you to know I'm not a pervert." J.J. told Respondent she did not want to talk about
it anymore, and Respondent ended the conversation. After her shift, J.J. informed
her supervisor of what occurred. The supervisor reported the incident to two other
judges, including the Chief Magistrate (Complainant). J.J. gave Complainant a
written statement, and Complainant filed that statement with ODC on October 18,
2024.

Respondent admits showing J.J. the photos but denies he was attempting to
insinuate, in any way, an attraction to J.J. Respondent acknowledges his conduct
was inappropriate and resigned from his position.

II.

Respondent admits that his conduct violated 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 2A (requiring a judge to act at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary).

Respondent further admits his misconduct is a ground 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 a condition of discipline, Respondent
agrees not to seek or accept judicial office in South Carolina in the future.

III.

Because Respondent is no longer a judge and because he has agreed not to
hereafter seek or accept another judicial position in South Carolina in the future,
we accept the Agreement and issue a public reprimand. This is the strongest
punishment we can give Respondent, given the fact that he has already resigned his
duties as a judge. See In re Gravely, 321 S.C. 235, 467 S.E.2d 924 (1996) ("A
public reprimand is the most severe sanction that can be imposed when the
respondent no longer holds judicial office.") Accordingly, Respondent is hereby
publicly reprimanded for his misconduct. 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.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

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