Attorney General stands by 2022 opinion that 72 is retirement age for SC judges

The state Attorney General’s office says it won’t change its opinion that the mandatory retirement age for South Carolina judges and justices is 72.

“It remains our opinion that state law requires judges to retire at the age of 72. Every previous judge has retired upon reaching that age, and our opinion reflects that longstanding practice,” wrote an attorney general spokesman in an email to The State newspaper.

“It is commonly referred to as ‘mandatory retirement.’ We do not plan to revise our opinion because our stance has not changed, and because our opinions are advisory only, and only a court can rule definitively,” the spokesman wrote.

Katrina Shealy, a former Republican state senator from Lexington County, who queried the attorney general about the retirement age in 2022, told The State newspaper in a recent interview that she considered the attorney general’s opinion to be clear in its statement that South Carolina judges must retire at 72.

Nonetheless, Shealy said, she does believe that judges should be allowed to serve past the age of 72 because at that age, many people have spent a lifetime gaining wisdom and judgment, and it’s a shame to make them leave the bench if they’re still qualified.

Lucas: Law won’t apply to me

The State newspaper had queried the Attorney General’s office after Jay Lucas, a candidate for a 10-year term for a justice’s post on the S.C. Supreme Court, made the surprising assertion Nov. 17 before the Judicial Merit Selection Commission that if elected he will serve past the mandatory retirement age of 72.

Lucas is now 68 and will turn 69 next year in August.

“Someone given your age will only be able to serve — unless the law is changed — three years out of 10,” state Sen. Luke Rankin, R-Horry, told Lucas at the Commission hearing where Lucas was questioned by members. The Commission screens judicial candidates and forwards recommendations to the General Assembly, whose members elect judges and justices.

Lucas then told Rankin and the other commission members the law specifying 72 as the retirement age doesn’t apply to him because it only applies to those judges and justices who seek a judicial pension upon retiring at age 72.

“Senator, I think the statute that deals with the retirement age as 72 years deals with eligibility to receive retirement benefits. It doesn’t preclude eligibility to serve. I think I can serve my entire term,” Lucas told an astonished Rankin.

Rankin wanted to make sure he understood Lucas. “You don’t believe that the law would preclude you if you were elected from serving to age 79 or age 80?”

That’s right, replied Lucas. “I think I would be allowed to serve my entire term. ... The statute deals with eligibility to receive retirement benefits — not the eligibility to serve ... I could serve a full term.”

With reporters sitting in the audience, Rankin told Lucas he was making news because up until now, South Carolina judges and justices and politicians have considered 72 as the mandatory retirement age.

“Trust me — I had no idea!” said Rankin, 63, who has been a lawyer 37 years and a state senator 32 years. Rankin is also chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — someone whom one would think would know what the law says.

Lawsuit in Lucas’ future?

Lucas’ interpretation of the judges’ mandatory retirement age has attracted the attention of John Crangle, a Columbia lawyer who has written books on South Carolina ethics and corruption cases such as Lost Trust, a bribery scandal in the General Assembly in which more than a dozen lawmakers were convicted.

“I would think there would be a lawsuit,” Crangle predicted in an interview. “It’s a brazen violation of the AG’s opinion and the intent and purpose of the law, which is to compel retirement at age 72. He has no factual basis that he needs to be exempt from that law.”

Crangle also criticized statements made by Lucas during his November appearance at the Judicial Merit Screening Commission in which Lucas downplayed the importance of judicial experience on the bench.

“He’s just blowing smoke,” Crangle said, dismissing Lucas’ claims as having absolutely no validity.

“He has no prior judicial experience of any significance,” said Crangle, adding that all but one candidate for a post on the state Supreme Court in the last half century had served as state circuit or appeals court judges before being elected to the high court. (Crangle was referring to former Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal, who was elected to the Supreme Court in 1988. At the time, Toal was a state House member recognized for her legislative accomplishments.)

Crangle said any lawsuit challenging Lucas on his interpretation won’t be any time soon.

First, Lucas would have to be elected to the Supreme Court. Then, if Lucas didn’t retire in the year he turns 72, in 2029, a lawsuit challenging his tenure on the bench could be filed at that time, Crangle said.

“Jay could also now bring an action asking for a declaratory judgment on the question,” said Crangle, noting that Lucas would have the standing before a court to seek such a judgment.

During his screening, Lucas — who had served as a small town city judge before beginning his 24-year legislative career in 1999 — stressed how his varied law practice handling all kinds of legal matters qualifies him to be on the state Supreme Court.

During his time in the Legislature, Lucas was regarded as a popular and able lawmaker, especially as Speaker from 2014-2022 in the 124-member House in which he exercised considerable agenda-setting power including the appointment of lawmakers to various committees.

At the November hearing, Lucas told screening commission members he considers his lack of judicial experience as a positive.

“I don’t think the Supreme Court is a court of elevation. I think it’s a court that rewards diligence in the practice of law,” Lucas said.

The Supreme Court should be a court of ideas, a court of intellect, a place that embraces judgment and wisdom — “the entirety of one’s legal career” — Lucas said, explaining that his non-judge experience more than qualifies him to sit on the Supreme Court.

Lucas was a member of the House and speaker during Special Prosecutor David Pascoe’s corruption investigation of the Legislature.

From 2014 to 2021, Pascoe uncovered a hidden network of pay-to-play influence in the Legislature — dubbed “the Quinndom” — orchestrated by the late political power broker Richard Quinn. Five former lawmakers including four House members were quietly accepting money from him, and later they were convicted on or pleaded guilty to various misconduct charges. Lucas was not implicated in the scandal.

Lucas is now a practicing lawyer in Hartsville and also senior vice president of governmental affairs at Prisma, a major multibillion hospital and provider complex in South Carolina. In that post, he leads Prisma’s governmental affairs activities at the local, state and federal levels.

The 170-member General Assembly will vote on the four candidates for the state Supreme Court associate justice post on March 4 in a joint assembly.

Besides Lucas, the three candidates running for the seat are current Associate Justice John Few, Court of Appeals Judge Blake Hewitt and Administrative Law Court Chief Judge Ralph Anderson III.

The associate justice post Lucas is seeking pays $233,606 a year.

Lucas did not answer reporters’ questions as he left the November screening commission meeting. He could not be reached Monday.

This story was originally published December 2, 2025 at 5:30 AM.