Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines regarding acceptance of campaign contributions by judge running for reelection.  [Added 1/19/12]

    The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee answered several questions asked by a judge who is running for reelection.  The summary of questions and answers is copied below; for greater detail please review the Committee's opinion.

"QUESTION 1:  May a judge accept campaign contributions from a candidate running for office in a non-judicial election?

ANSWER:  No. A committee of responsible persons established to secure funds for the campaign however may accept such contributions.

QUESTION 2:  May a judge accept contributions from an officer in a local political party organization?

ANSWER:  No. A committee of responsible persons established to secure funds for the campaign however may accept such contributions.

QUESTION 3:  May a judge accept contributions that the persons identified in Questions 1 and 2 have generated, if neither of these persons is on the committee of responsible persons established to secure funds for the judge's campaign?

ANSWER: No. A committee of responsible persons established to secure funds for the campaign may accept such contributions.  Neither the judge nor the committee of responsible persons however may encourage or facilitate, directly or indirectly, the activities of either: (i) a candidate running for another office; or (ii) a political party or an officer thereof, to generate contributions to the judge's campaign."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-01 (Election).

Two judicial candidates running in different races may travel together to campaign speaking events if they don't appear to endorse each other.  [Added 1/3/12]

    One judicial candidate wished to campaign speaking events with a candidate for a differen judicial office, and asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether this would be ethically permissible.

    The Committee's opinion noted that Canon 7A(1)(b) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct states that “a candidate for election . . . to judicial office shall not . . . publicly endorse . . . another candidate for public office.”  The Code, however, does not prohibit a private endorsement.  See Commentary to Canon 7A.  Accordingly the Committee concluded:  "The inquiring judicial candidate may travel to campaign speaking events with another judicial candidate who is running in a different race as long as the candidates do not travel together so frequently that it creates the impression that the judicial candidates are working together or are endorsing each other, and as long as the vehicle in which they are traveling does not display the other candidate’s campaign advertising."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-20 (Election).

Judge seeking re-election  may sponsor hole at charity golf tournament hosted by young lawyers section of local bar association.  [Added 10/8/11]

    Judge plans to run for re-election in 2014.  Judge is considering sponsoring a hole at a charity golf tournament hosted by the Young Lawyers Section ("YLS") of the local bar association.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee "whether a judge is allowed to expend campaign contributions to be a hole sponsor at the golf tournament, appear at the golf hole and display campaign literature/logo.  In the Inquiring Judge’s assessment, only paid attendees would know about the judge’s hole sponsorship, and if necessary, the judge would advise the chairperson not to use the judge’s name or title to raise funds."

    The Committee declined to answer the question about whether spending campaign funds on the hole sponsorship is a question of statutory interpretation that was outside of the scope of its authority.

    Turning to the ethical considerations, the Committee addressed the 2008 amendments to the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which revised Canons 4 and 5 of the Code to permit judicial participation in fundraising in the context of "quasi-judicial activities” (Canon 4) and “extrajudicial activities” (Canon 5).  See Re: Amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct-Limitations on Judges’ Participation in Fundraising Activities, 983 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2008).  The Committee concluded that the proposed conduct was not permitted under amended Canon.  "[T]he Young Lawyers Section of the local bar association is an appropriate organization under the new test of Canon 4.  However, the facts of this inquiry show that the event does not concern the law, the legal system or the administration of justice, and the funds raised will not be used for a law-related purpose.  Therefore, the proposed activity is not a 'quasi-judicial' activity permitted under Canon 4."

The applicability of Canon 5 presented a closer question.  "Canon 5 and its Commentary now permit a judge to attend and participate in a charitable fundraiser if: 

1. There is no pre-event advertising of the judge’s attendance and participation, and

2. The judge engages in no direct fundraising or membership solicitation at the event, and

3. The judge is not a speaker, a guest of honor or otherwise “featured” at the event, and

4. The judge complies with all other provision of the Code."

    The Committee noted that the facts did not suggest any pre-event advertising or direct fundraising/solicitation, or that Judge would be a guest speaker or a guest of honor.  Rather, "[t]he only question is whether the judge’s sponsoring a hole and campaigning or advertising at the hole constitutes being 'featured' in violation of the Code’s Commentary."

    A majority of the Committee concluded that Judge would not be "featured" and thus the proposed conduct was permissible.  "Canon 5’s prohibition against being 'featured' at the event refers to conduct by the event sponsor, not by the participating judge.  Here, the judge may be engaging in self-featuring, or in featuring the judge’s candidacy, but such campaign conduct is permitted by law and is normal conduct for any public official who is required to run for office.  Engaging in such campaign conduct at a YLS Golf Tournament does not violate the prohibitions of Canon 5 against improper fundraising for a charity."

    A minority of the Committee was of the view that the conduct was prohibited by both Canon 4 and Canon 5.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-15.

Code of Judicial Conduct does not require hearing officer to resign in order to run for election as county judge.  [Added 7/13/11]

    A hearing officer plans to seek election as a county judge.  The hearing officer asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to remain in the position of hearing officer while campaigning for, and receiving campaign funds in support of a campaign for, the office of county judge.

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  "The applicable section of the [Florida] Code of Judicial Conduct provides that the Code applies to traffic magistrates, with certain exceptions.  Canon 7, which governs campaign activities, is not within any of the exceptions and thus a traffic magistrate must comply with all provisions of Canon 7.  Canon 7(2) requires that a judge must resign from judicial office upon becoming a candidate for a non-judicial office.  Therefore, the Code does not require the Inquiring Hearing Officer to resign from office to seek the judicial office of county judge."

    The Committee expressly stated that it was offering no opinion concerning whether any statutory provisions might be violated by the proposed conduct.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-09.

Judge who will seek re-election is disqualified from presiding over cases involving opponent or opponent's law partner and campaign treasurer.  [Added 6/8/11]

    Judge, who presides over a civil division, plans to seek re-election when the term expires in 3 1/2 years.  A local attorney ("Opponent") has announced the intention to run for Judge's seat and has opened a campaign account.  Opponent's law partner is the campaign treasurer.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee for an opinion regarding whether Judge is disqualified from presiding over a case involving Opponent's law partner.

    The Committee opined that Judge was disqualified from the case.  Per Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge "shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."  This would include a situation where a judge presides over a case involving a political opponent.  See Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 84-12.  The Committee then concluded:  "Since the inquiring judge is disqualified from any cases which involve the judge’s political opponent, the judge is also disqualified from any cases involving the political opponent’s law partner and campaign treasurer."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2011-08.

Florida Supreme Court disciplines a judge for election-related misconduct.  [Added 12/7/10]

    The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") filed charges accusing Judge of election-related misconduct during her 2008 campaign.  The JQC alleged that Judge "listed contributions to her campaign fund totaling $125,000 as loans made by her, when those funds were in fact loans from her father made in violation of the contribution limits set by" Fla.Stat. sec. 106.08 (2007).  Judge and the JQC entered a stipulation to the following facts.  Prior to the election Judge executed a promissory note in favor of her parents, received funds in 4 installments, deposited the funds into her campaign account, and listed these deposits on her quarterly campaign treasurer's reports as a loan from Judge.  Shortly after the general election Judge filed a report with the Division of Elections showing that she received loans from her father.  The next year Judge filed her annual Form 6 "Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests" statement that did not disclose the loans from her father.  After the JQC investigation commenced, Judge filed an amended Form 6 listing the loans.

    The JQC concluded that Judge violated Canons 1, 2A, and 6B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended that Judge be publicly reprimanded and pay a $5,000 fine.

    On review, the Florida Supreme Court imposed the recommended discipline.  "We agree that Judge []’s misconduct was less egregious or more mitigated than the misconduct at issue in [In re] Rodriguez [829 So.2d 857 (Fla. 2002)] and [In re] Pando [903 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2005)] and that a less severe sanction than was imposed in those cases is appropriate here.  Because the JQC’s recommended discipline is consistent with this Court’s precedent, we approve the recommendation."  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 09-518 re: Yvonne Colodny, 51 So.3d 430 (Fla. 2010).

Non-judge judicial candidate may pay for table to distribute campaign literature at non-partisan meet-the-candidates fundraiser.  [Added 8/23/10]

    Candidate, who is not a judge, is running for a judgeship.  A local non-partisan, "meet-the-candidates" event has been scheduled and all candidates have been invited.  Those who choose to attend would pay a $200 fee, which includes food for the candidate and a table from which to pass out campaign literature.  Candidate asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible to participate.  Candidate also asked whether it would matter if the event was a fundraiser.

    The Committee answered that Candidate could participate regardless of whether the event was a fundraiser.  A prior Committee opinion concluded that purchasing a table at this type of event with campaign funds was permissible, provided the event is non-partisan and the candidate does not comment on party affiliation.  See JEAC Opinion 04-23.

    Furthermore, in light of In re: Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2003), and JEAC Opinion 10-14, whether the event is a fundraiser is immaterial in Candidate's situation because non-judge candidates for judicial office are governed only by Canon 7 and not by the other provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  "In other words, if the candidate is not already a judge there are no restrictions on the candidate’s raising funds for charity."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-30.

Judicial candidate may not host website or Facebook page promoting the campaign.  [Added 8/9/10]

    Judge is running for re-election in a contested campaign.  Judge asked two questions of the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

    The first question concerned Judge's proposed contribution to a public broadcasting station.  Judge informed the Committee that Judge's name would be announced on the air by the station when it thanked Judge for the contribution, and asked whether this would be ethically permissible.  The Committee observed that "Canon 5B(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge may not solicit funds for charitable organizations or permit the use of the prestige of the office for that purpose."  In answering Judge's inquiry, the Committee opined:  "The Committee believes that a judge may make a contribution to a station which will thereafter thank the judge on the air by name, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to communicate to the television station the intent and desire that the station not use the judge's contribution as a lure for contributions by other donors."  (Two Committee members were of the view that Judge "should not permit the station to use the title 'judge' when announcing the name of the contributor.")

    Judge's second question was whether Judge ethically may host a website or Facebook page promoting Judge's campaign.  The Committee answered in the negative.  "Canon 7C(1), provides that a candidate or judge may not personally solicit campaign funds, but may establish committees of  responsible  persons to raise funds and to obtain public statements of support for the judge's campaign.  Websites and Facebook pages promoting the candidacy of a judge or judicial candidates should be established and maintained by these committees, and not by the judge or judicial candidate personally."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-28.

Florida Supreme Court advises Governor to fill judicial vacancy by appointment.  [Added 7/16/10]

    A county court judge submitted his resignation to the Governor, who accepted it on May 28, 2010.  The judge, however, had already qualified to run unopposed for reelection.  The qualifying period closed on April 30, 2010.  The judge apparently intended to resign, then resume service on the bench in February 2011 as a result of his reelection (as he was unopposed, his reelection was certain pursuant to Fla.Stat. sec. 105.051(1)(a).)  The Governor's letter to the Florida Supreme Court requesting an advisory opinion asked "whether the Governor’s constitutional responsibility to fill vacancies on circuit and county courts by appointment exists when a vacancy on such a court occurs after the conclusion of a qualifying period in which no candidates other than the incumbent judge have qualified for election."

    The Florida Supreme Court's response discussed constitutional provisions relating to the appointment and election of judges.  The Court summarized the issue before it as "whether an incumbent judge who had been reelected without opposition may then retire from office and leave a judgeship vacant for an extended period before resuming the duties of the office when it is convenient for him to do so."  Having so phrased the question, the Court essentially answered it in the negative.  "A judgeship is not an office that may be temporarily forsaken at will for personal benefit.  When a vacancy arises from such circumstances, the Governor may properly fill the vacancy by appointment pursuant to [Fla. Constit.] article V, section 11(b)."  Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Judicial Vacancy Due to Resignation, 42 So.3d 795 (Fla. 2010).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addresses questions regarding campaign-related activities that judicial candidate's spouse may engage in.  [Added 7/12/10]

The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed a number of questions regarding campaign-related activities that a judicial candidate's spouse may engage in.  The Committee's conclusions are summarized below.

The judicial candidate’s spouse may be a member of a major political party’s executive committee, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.

The judicial candidate’s spouse may speak on behalf of the candidate outside of the political meetings of the political party’s executive committee, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.

The judicial candidate’s spouse may host lunches outside of any formal meetings of the political party’s executive committee for the spouse’s friends on the committee and at the same time campaign for the candidate, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.

The judicial candidate’s spouse may campaign for the candidate at non-political functions that the candidate and the spouse attend together, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.

The  the judicial candidate’s spouse may campaign for the candidate at functions that the candidate’s opponent and the candidate attend jointly and are asked to speak, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-22 (Election).

Judicial candidate may speak at "Tea Party" and "Patriot" gatherings, but only under limited conditions.  [Added 7/12/10]

The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee was asked by a judicial candidate whether it would be ethically permissible to speak at gatherings of local "Patriot" and "Tea Party" groups.  The candidate stated that each group advocates constitutional education, but the Committee concluded that the candidate should treat the gatherings of both of the groups as political party functions.  "Accordingly, the Committee believes that the candidate may speak at one of these functions only under the conditions described in Canon 7(3)(C), that is, the event is not a fundraiser, the other candidates for the position have been invited, and the candidate limits the presentation to the topics permitted by Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 7(3)(C)."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-19 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines regarding judicial candidate's use of campaign managers and consultants.  [Added 7/7/10]

In 2 advisory opinions the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed questions concerning use of campaign managers and consultants by judicial candidates.

A judicial candidate ethically may not have a volunteer campaign manager who is is an officer of a partisan political party, even if the person will not campaign for the candidate while engaged in partisan activities.  "The candidate recognizes that the committee has previously held that a judicial candidate may not hire an executive officer of a partisan political committee as the judicial candidate’s campaign manager or consultant.  Fla. JEAC Op. 08-16.  The only difference between the established precedent, as reflected in the above-cited opinion, and this inquiry is that the executive officer of the partisan political party would be a volunteer rather than being hired by the candidate’s campaign.  There is no material difference in this inquiry which would lead to a different conclusion than that held in Fla. JEAC Op. 08-16."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-21 (Election).

A judicial candidate, however, ethically may use as a campaign consultant a sitting member of the county commission who is not currently running for office or asserting any political party view in support of any other non-judicial or judicial candidate.  (The Committee assumed for purposes of its opinion that the consultant "is not an executive officer of a partisan political committee.")  The Committee concluded:  "[W]e find no basis for a per se rule forbidding other, nonjudicial officeholders – who are not themselves candidates in the same election cycle, are not acting on behalf of any partisan organization, and are not presenting judicial candidates to the public as a group – to serve as campaign managers for judicial candidates."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-18 (Election).

Judge's campaign may not use photo of judge receiving award with Florida Supreme Court justices watching.  [Added 7/710]

    The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee concluded that a judge campaigning for election to the bench may not use a photo of the judge receiving the "Distinguished Judicial Service Award"  while standing at a lectern in the well of the Florida Supreme Court with several justices shown in the photo "seated at the bench apparently listening intently."  The Committee noted that "it is apparently of no moment that the photograph depicts an historical event and was not staged for campaign purposes."  Furthermore, the Committee observed that Canon 7A(1)(b) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct forbids judges from endorsing any candidate for office in any way.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-18 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discusses when relatives of judicial candidates may solicit contributions and endorsements.  [Added 6/28/2010]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-16 (Election).

Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issues opinion regarding judicial election practices.  [Added 6/18/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-14 (Election).

Florida Supreme Court reprimands judge for ethical violations during her election campaign.  [Added 2/5/10]  --  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Nos. 08-392, 08-360 re: Angela Dempsey, 29 So.3d 1030 (Fla. 2010).

Governor must appoint a judicial nominee from the names submitted by the Judicial Nominating Commission, per Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 7/6/09]  --  Pleus v. Crist, 14 So.3d 941 (Fla. 2009).

Supreme Court advises Governor that suspended lawyer who was elected to circuit judgeship is not eligible to take judicial office.  [Added 2/4/09]  --  Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Commission of Elected Judge, 17 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2009).

Judicial candidate may not hire campaign consultant who is running for office as partisan political candidate or is executive officer of political party.  [Added 9/6/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-16 (Election).

Judicial candidate may use title "Administrative Law Judge" when describing experience with Division of Administrative Hearings.  [Added 7/3/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-15 (Election).

Judicial candidate ethically may sign pledge to strive for diversity in discretionary appointments, per Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.  [Added 6/30/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-14 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discusses common campaign questions raised by sitting judge seeking re-election.  [Added 5/21/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-11 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addresses use of "judge" and judicial robe by judicial candidate who previously was circuit judge.  [Added 5/21/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-10 (Election).  NOTE:  The Committee applied a similar analysis to judges who have retired from the circuit bench and currently holding senior status.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-13 (Election).

Judge's parents may not send out letters supporting judge's re-election bid and soliciting campaign funds.  [Added 4/4/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-09 (Election).

Judge whose spouse is running for non-partisan public office may not attend spouse's "meet and greet" campaign gatherings, even at judge's home.  [Added 9/25/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-13 (September 14, 2007).

Judge-elect may maintain law partnership bank account to receive outstanding fees during winding-up of partnership.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-31.

Judge who is not candidate may attend community-sponsored, non-partisan function in order to socialize and hear candidates' speeches.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2006-25.

Judicial candidate may use endorsement of retired judge in ads only if retired judge is not eligible for recall.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-24 (Election).

Not unethical for judicial candidate to accept and advertise endorsement from elected partisan official, if endorsement provided in official's individual capacity.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-21 (Election).

Judge running for re-election limited in using favorable remarks from juror questionnaires in campaign literature.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-20 (Election).

Ethically impermissible for judge to attend political function sponsored by political party, even merely as spectator.   Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-19 (Election).

Not unethical for judicial candidate to respond to questionnaires seeking candidate's views on certain political issues and recent court decisions.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-18 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines on questions presented by sitting magistrate who is running for judicial position.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-16 (Election).

Judicial candidate may not attend "round up" sponsored by political party women's group, where candidates are not invited to speak.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-15 (Election).

Judge's campaign ad may include family photo with spouse who is also a judge, but spouse may not accompany judge to campaign appearances.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-13 (Election).

Judge may not authorize placement of sign for partisan political candidate on property or auto owned by judge and judge's spouse.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-11.

Person who "pre-qualifies" for judicial race is "candidate" and thus may not serve as advisory to political party or accept party's help in gathering petition signatures.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-08.

Florida Supreme Court amends Judicial Code Canon 7 on public statements by judicial candidates concerning pending cases.  Amendment to Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7 (Political Activity), 897 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2005).

Improper endorsement for judicial candidate to attend church services with incumbent judge and be introduced as incumbent's "friend and guest."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-30 (Election).

Judicial candidate's letter seeking information about incumbent's health would be "campaign literature" and thus not subject to advisory opinion.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-25.

Judge ethically precluded from commenting on reasons for ruling on motion by election opponent, or on opponent's conduct in case, where case is pending before judge.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-19 (Election).

Unopposed judicial election candidate may attend and speak at political party club meetings, within bounds of Canon 7.  Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2004-11 (Election).

Judicial candidate may not directly or indirectly seek political party's endorsement, but may comment on disputed legal or political issues with appropriate qualifying language.  Florida Judicial Advisory Opinion 2004-09 (Election).

Judge publicly reprimanded for participation in partisan political events in violation of Florida law and Code of Judicial Conduct.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re: Carven D. Angel, 867 So.2d 379 (Fla. 2004).  NOTE:  The Court’s opinion did not address the constitutionality of the restrictions on a campaigning judge’s activity that are contained in Fla. Stat. sec. 105.071 and Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 7.  The Court, however, previously indicated that the decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) did not affect the validity of Florida's Canon 7.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re: Patricia Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2003).  Additionally, the Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has declined to address the constitutionality of the Code because doing so would be beyond its authority.  See Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2003-13.

Circuit judge running for re-election may not solicit lawyers for public or financial support despite Weaver v. Bonner.  Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-07 (Election).