THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of Angel Catina Underwood of the Chester 

County Magistrate Court, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000130

Opinion No. 28096

Submitted May 6, 2022 – Filed May 25, 2022

DEFINITE SUSPENSION

Disciplinary Counsel John S. Nichols and Deputy 

Disciplinary Counsel Carey Taylor Markel, both of 

Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

I.S. Leevy Johnson, of Johnson Toal & Battiste, PA, of 

Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this judicial disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office 

of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent 

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 the issuance of any 

sanction in Rule 7(b), RJDE, up to a six-month suspension. We accept the 

Agreement and suspend Respondent from office for six months. 

I.

In 2017 and 2018, Respondent was the Chief Magistrate of Chester County and her 

husband was the Chester County Sheriff. The Chester County Sheriff's 

Department (Sheriff's Department) had a Facebook page through which members 

of the public could send private tips regarding criminal activity. Respondent 

accessed the Sheriff's Department's Facebook messages on the Sheriff's behalf for 
the purpose of transmitting the information to Sheriff's Department Employees and 

requesting that certain actions be taken in response to various complaints, 

including suspected drug activity and trash and noise complaints. In doing so, 

Respondent copied the messages from Facebook, then used her Chester Countyissued judicial email account to forward the complaints to Sheriff's Department 

employees. Respondent's emails included a signature block in which she identified 

herself as a Chester County Magistrate and listed the address and telephone 

number for the magistrate's court.

Additionally, in 2018, Respondent assisted her husband with drafting a disciplinary 

action concerning a Sheriff's Department employee. Respondent used her judicial 

email account to forward the draft of the disciplinary action to her husband for his 

review. That same year, Respondent prepared a letter for the Sheriff's Department 

in which the Community Services Division recommended a student for a 

scholarship. Using her judicial email account, Respondent emailed the Sheriff's 

Department staff directing them to place the letter on Sheriff's Department 

letterhead and place it in a Sheriff's Department envelope.

1

II.

"Our judicial system should stand as the symbol of fairness and justice, and of 

equal protection dispensed to every citizen." In re Eaken, 150 A.3d 1042, 1055 

(Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016). "An independent and honorable judiciary is 

indispensable to justice in our society." Canon 1A, Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 

501, SCACR. A judge "shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public 

confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Canon 2A, Code of 

Judicial Conduct, Rule 501, SCACR. Judicial "misconduct that is part of a pattern 

or practice is more serious than an isolated instance of misconduct." In re Brown, 

625 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Mich. 2000).

The Agreement establishes Respondent accessed the Sheriff's Department 

Facebook messages, received citizen complaints, forwarded those complaints using 

her judicial email account, involved herself in Sheriff's Department personnel 

matters, and prepared correspondence on behalf of the Sheriff's department. These 

 

1 The Agreement also contains a second disciplinary matter involving eviction 

documents and the Chester County Supervisor. However, the factual summary 

included in the Agreement and the March 9, 2022 supplement is inadequate to 

support a finding by this Court that Applicant committed misconduct in that 

matter. Accordingly, this opinion does not address those allegations.
actions blurred the boundaries between her role as an independent and impartial 

magistrate and someone acting on behalf of the Sheriff's Department. Regardless 

of whether Respondent intended her emails and actions to remain private, her 

conduct served to erode public confidence in the judiciary. Accordingly, we find 

Respondent's pattern of conduct with the Sheriff's Department is sufficient to 

create in reasonable minds a perception that her ability to carry out her judicial 

responsibilities impartially is impaired, thereby violating Canon 2A of the Code of 

Judicial Conduct, Rule 501, SCACR. 

III.

In the Agreement, Respondent admits her misconduct constitutes grounds for 

discipline under Rule 7(a)(1), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR (providing a violation of 

the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be a ground for discipline).2

 In light of 

Respondent's disciplinary history,

3 we find a suspension from judicial duties is 

appropriate. We therefore accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and 

suspend Respondent from office for six months. Within thirty days, Respondent 

shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by 

Disciplinary Counsel and the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

 

2 Respondent is not licensed to practice law in South Carolina. However, as an 

officer of the unified judicial system eligible to perform judicial functions in South 

Carolina, she is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Conduct. 

See Rule 2(r), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR (defining a judge as "anyone, whether or 

not a lawyer, who is an officer of the unified judicial system, and who is eligible to 

perform judicial functions"); Rule 3(b)(1), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR (providing 

the Commission on Judicial Conduct has "jurisdiction over judges"). 

3 In re Underwood, 417 S.C. 433, 790 S.E.2d 761 (2016) (publicly reprimanding 

Respondent for handling cases involving the Chester County Sheriff's Department 

while her husband was Sheriff of Chester County without properly following the

remittal of disqualification requirements of Canon 3F, Code of Judicial Conduct, 

Rule 501, SCACR).