Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimands judge for his response to disqualification motion and conduct in dealing with pro se litigants.  [Added 2/17/10]

    The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") filed formal charges against Judge.  After a hearing the JQC recommended that Judge be found guilty of ethical violations in Count I and Count III.

    In Count I, Judge was presiding over a criminal trial.  On the day jury selection was to begin, the defense moved to sever the two charges.  Judge denied the motion.  Judge also denied a defense request regarding admissibility of a video.  The defendant was concerned about Judge's rulings and defense counsel asked for an opportunity to prepare a motion for Judge's disqualification.  Judge responded by raising the defendant's bond.  At the JQC investigative hearing, Judge explained that he viewed the defendant's conduct as an attempt to gain a continuance but agreed that he raised the bond because of the disqualification request.  The JCQ hearing panel found that Judge had effectively punished the defendant for exercising a legitimate legal right.

    In Count III, Judge openly disagreed with his Circuit's policy requiring county court judges to hear petitions for injunctions against domestic violence or repeat violence.  When presiding over domestic violence injunction hearings, Judge was accused of treating pro se petitioners in a "formulaic and impersonal" manner, "providing no assistance whatsoever to the petitioners." 

    On review the Florida Supreme Court agreed that Judge's conduct ran afoul of Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  Regarding Count I, the Court stated that "[e]ven if Judge [] justifiably believed that the motion to recuse was filed without merit, this in no way creates a right for a judicial officer to punish the defendant for exercising his legal rights."  Judge's reliance on actions of other judges in his county in similar situations, or Judge's good motives, do not excuse departure from the requirements of the Code.  Regarding Count III, the Court noted the JQC's finding that Judge's conduct essentially penalized pro se petitioners for being unfamiliar with the judicial system.

    The Court concluded that the appropriate discipline was a public reprimand.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 07-43 re: Ralph E. Eriksson, __ So.3d ___ (Fla., No. SC07-1648, 2/11/2010).

Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimands judges for ethical violations in two separate matters.  [Added 11/11/09]

    In two separate cases handed down the same day, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded sitting Florida judges for violations of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.

Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 08-373 re: Peter A. Bell, __ So.3d ___ (Fla., No. SC09-782, 11/5/2009).  Judge was charged by the Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") with ethical violations allegedly stemming from a domestic violence case hearing at which Judge found that probable cause existed for Former Husband's domestic battery charge and also ordered Former Wife, "who was present in court as a victim of domestic violence, to be taken into custody.  In accord with Judge []'s order, the former wife was arrested, incarcerated overnight, and ordered to appear the next day for first appearance."

    Judge later "acknowledged that his actions had the potential appearance of impropriety."  Judge and the JQC "reached an agreement and entered into a stipulation in which Judge [] acknowledged that he violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(1), and 3B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  According to the stipulation, Judge [] accepted full responsibility for the conduct and admitted that it should not have occurred and that his actions had the appearance of unfairness, which eroded the confidence of the public in the impartiality and integrity of the court system.  Moreover, Judge [] expressed his regret and apologies for such conduct . . ."  The JQC concluded that Judge's actions were "misguided but not ill-intentioned" and recommended a public reprimand.

    The Florida Supreme Court accepted the JQC's findings and recommendations and imposed a public reprimand on Judge.

Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 07-417 re: Mary Jane Henderson, __ So.3d ___ (Fla., No. SC09-1416, 11/5/2009).  Judge was charged by the Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") with ethical violations allegedly arising from her relationship with Wheeler, a former defendant in her court who was "a convicted felon with substance abuse problems."  The JQC's Notice of Formal charges "alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, namely:  Canon 1, Canon 2A, Canon 2B, and Canon 5A.  The notice alleged in essence that Judge [] had a long-standing relationship with Henry Wheeler, and that as a result of the friendship, Judge [] took actions that undermined the integrity of her official office.  The notice alleged that Judge [] assisted Wheeler in finding an apartment in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, and that because of her judicial  position and statements to the landlord, the apartment was rented to Wheeler.  The notice alleged that Judge [] held moneys for Wheeler, purchased a cell phone for him, and loaned him money for cab fares and to buy a vehicle.  The notice also detailed incidents that occurred when Wheeler was drunk and disorderly at Judge []’s residence and in her chambers, and the fact that Judge [] advised police she did not wish to make a statement.  The JQC alleged that even after being warned by members of the clerk’s office that her conduct was impugning her judicial office, Judge [] failed to terminate her relationship with Wheeler."

    Judge admitted that "'her conduct, while well intentioned, created an appearance of impropriety in appearing to lend her judicial office to advance a private interest, thus demeaning the office.'"  The JQC found that Judge violated the cited Canons and recommended that Judge be publicly reprimanded.

    The Florida Supreme Court accepted the JQC's findings and recommendations and imposed a public reprimand on Judge.

Florida Supreme Court reprimands judge for filing petition of mandamus regarding first appearance proceedings  [Added 1/30/09]

    Judge was a county commissioner for 12 years before being elected to the county court bench.  During the judicial campaign Judge made comments about jail overcrowding and expressed the view that a judge could do a lot regarding the problem.  After assuming the bench in January 2005, Judge had disagreements with other judges concerning his rulings at first appearances.  In July 2006 Judge filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourth DCA with himself as petitioner and naming the public defender, state attorney, and sheriff as respondents.  A number of other judges were cited as respondents in the body of the petition.  "The petition sought to compel these respondents to comply with [Judge's] view of Florida law on pretrial release.  Judge [] also alleged that the relief he requested would normally be sought by the public defender, but that the St. Lucie County public defender was married to a county court judge.  Judge [] asked that this judge be ordered to recuse himself from presiding over first appearances because of his marital relationship with the public defender."  The petition argued that the respondent judges were acting in violation of the U.S. and Florida constitutions, as well as Florida statutes and rules.  Eventually Judge voluntarily dismissed the petition without a ruling from the Fourth DCA.

    The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") filed charges against Judge.  A hearing panel of the JQC found him guilty on 4 of the 7 counts.  The hearing panel concluded that he violated several provisions of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended that he be publicly reprimanded.

    On review the Florida Supreme approved the guilty findings on 3 of the 4 counts and ordered that Judge be publicly reprimanded.  The 4 counts are discussed below.

    Count 2, Impartiality.  The Court agreed that the evidence supported the JQC's finding that Judge's filing of the petition "created a question as to [Judge's] ability to act in an impartial manner in criminal cases before him, because the filing appeared to advocate for the rights of defendants."  This violated Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require judges to act in a manner that promotes judicial impartiality.  The Court observed that "this advocacy raises questions as to [Judge's] impartiality because he has injected himself and his office into a controversy on behalf of defendants who were likely to appear before him at arraignment."

    Count 3, Practicing law.  Canon 5(g) prohibits judges from practicing law, except when acting pro se.  The JQC found that Judge's filing of the petition constituted the practice of law and was not done pro se (Judge signed the petition "in his capacity as" a county judge).  The Court, however, disapproved with this finding.  "A review of [Judge's] argument for standing in his petition reveals only that he was concerned as a judicial member of the justice system that first appearances were being conducted inappropriately and that he felt required by the Code of Judicial Conduct to take on this issue.  We conclude that there is a lack of clear and convincing evidence to indicate that Judge [] was practicing law."

    Count 5, Public attacks on fellow judges.  The Court approved the JQC's findings that Judge's petition included improper public attacks against fellow sitting judges and thus violated Canons 1 and 2.  The Court noted that "the petition was highly critical of the local judiciary and its filing clearly crossed the line between what is appropriate and what is not."

    Count 6, Failure to follow proper channels.  The Court stated:  "A review of the mandamus petition reveals that there is clear and convincing evidence that Judge [] chose to go public but failed to follow proper channels regarding the other judges’ alleged misconduct.  We agree that it is questionable whether the Fourth District had the authority to grant [Judge's] extensive demands, including the recusal of judges and ordering the chief judge to remove another judge from presiding over first appearances."  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 05-437 re: Clifford H. Barnes, 2 So.3d 166 (Fla. 2009).

Florida Supreme Court reprimands judge who, based on ex parte communications, authorized pre-trial release of ineligible sister of his former law partner.  [Added 10/2/08]  --  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 07-540 re: George W. Maxwell, III, 994 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2008).

Florida Supreme Court reprimands judge for her responses to motions to disqualify her.  [Added 10/2/08]  --  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 06-52 re: Cheryl Aleman, 995 So.2d 395 (Fla. 2008).

Judge who prevails against JQC charges may receive award of only costs, not attorney's fees.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re: Gregory P. Holder, 945 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 2006).

Florida Supreme Court removes judge from office despite JQC's recommendation of lesser sanction.  Inquiry Concerning Judge John R. Sloop, 4946 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 2006).

Florida Supreme Court reprimands judge for misconduct and approves stipulation whereby judge will retire and not serve as Senior Judge.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 05-131, re:  Brandt C. Downey, III, 937 So.2d 643 (Fla. 2006).

Florida Supreme Court removes judge for campaign violation despite JQC's recommendation of lesser sanction.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 02-466, re: Judge John Renke III, 933 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2006).

Judge romantically involved with lawyer practicing before him given public reprimand.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 05-05 re: James R. Adams, 932 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 2006).

Judge's campaign conduct and improper behavior on bench results in reprimand and referral to anger management counseling.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 04-249, re: W. Wayne Woodward, 919 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2006).

Judge publicly reprimanded for ordering police to release judge's close friend after DUI arrest.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 03-78, re: Dennis Maloney, 916 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2005).

Florida Supreme Court removes judge who allegedly practiced law while on bench and advised criminal client to flee jurisdiction.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 03-14 re: James E. Henson, 913 So.2d 579 (Fla. 2005).

Florida Supreme Court reprimands and fines judge who agreed to sanction, despite JQC's failure to allege violations of specific Canons.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge re:  Robert F. Diaz, 908 So.2d 334 (Fla. 2005).

Judge publicly reprimanded for failing to rule expeditiously in a dozen cases.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge re:  Meryl L. Allawas, 906 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 2005).

Florida Supreme Court reprimands and fines judge $25,000 for election campaign conduct.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re:  Ana Marie Pando, 903 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2005).

Judge publicly reprimanded for statements to media concerning defendant in pending case.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge re: Robert Lance Andrews, 875So.2d 441 (Fla. 2004).