County judge whose child is lawyer in State Attorney's Office is not disqualified from hearing criminal cases but should disclose relationship to parties in criminal cases.  [Added 1/31/12]

    County Judge often presides over felony and misdemeanor criminal trials.  Judge's child is graduating from law school and seeking employment with the State Attorney's Office in that county.  Judge recognized that the child could not handle any cases that would come before Judge.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether Judge would be disqualified from presiding over any and all criminal cases.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  Disqualification from any cases in which the child appears is required by Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct (“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself” where “the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them . . . is . . . a lawyer in the proceeding . . . .”)  That disqualification, however, does not extend to all cases involving the State Attorney's Office.

    The Committee went on to discuss the related question of disclosure to parties, noting that Comment [5] to Rule 2.11 of the Annotated Model Code of Judicial Conduct says a judge “should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification.”  (Emphasis by Court.)  The Court concluded:  "In sum, automatic disqualification is not required, but, if the child works for the state attorney’s office, all parties to criminal cases and their counsel should be so informed."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-02.

Judge disqualified from case may not perform anything other than "ministerial" acts in case after disqualification.  [Added/ 1/17/12]

    Judge was presiding over a dissolution of marriage case.  While an issue in the case was on appeal, Former Husband moved to disqualify Judge.  By the time the Fourth DCA's mandate following the appeal had issued, Judge had granted the disqualification motion.  "Notwithstanding the entry of that order, [Judge] conducted a teleconference with the parties, and directed the former husband to submit to the court the former husband’s objections or a proposed order."  Former Husband objected and filed a petition for prohibition.

    The Fourth DCA granted the petition and ordered Judge to participate no further in the case.  A disqualified judge generally is barred from further participation in that case.  There is a limited exception, announced in Fisher v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240 (Fla. 1986), "'[w]hen a judge has heard the testimony and arguments and rendered an oral ruling in a proceeding, the judge retains the authority to perform the ministerial act of reducing that ruling to writing.'  Fischer, 497 So.2d at 243 (citations omitted).  'However, any substantive change in the trial judge’s ruling would not be a ministerial act.'  Id."

    Here, the judge's actions went beyond the "ministerial act" exception.  "[I]n order to carry out this court’s mandate in the appeal, the trial judge would have to exercise his discretion to consider the former husband’s objections to the former wife’s proposed order, the former husband’s proposed order, or to draft his own order – any of which would constitute more than performing a ministerial task."  Ross v. Ross, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D11-2707, 1/11/2012).

First DCA "disfavors" and denies "blanket" request to disqualify judge from presiding over 16 other cases involving same lawyers who had judge disqualified in one case.  [Added 1/10/12]

    Lawyers for Grandmother in a publicized adoption case moved to disqualify the trial judge "based on comments the trial judge made concerning whether [Grandmother] or her attorneys had contacted the media."  After entering 3 orders, the judge recused herself from the case.

    Lawyers then filed motions to disqualify the judge in every other case in which they were attorneys of record -- 16 cases in all.  "The motions asserted that the trial judge had shown bias and prejudice against the attorneys in the adoption case which presented a legal basis for disqualification in all other cases."  The judge denied the motions as legally insufficient under Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.330.  Lawyers petitioned the First DCA for a writ of prohibition.

    The appellate court denied the petition.  "[C]ourts look with disfavor on a blanket request for recusal."  Lawyers contended that they had not filed a blanket request for recusal, the court disagreed.  "[T]hat is in effect what has been done by filing a motion to recuse in every single pending case in which the trial judge is presiding and the attorneys are counsel of record.  The trial judge’s comments in the adoption case did not require disqualification in every other pending case in which the attorneys appear as counsel of record."  R.M.C. v. D.C., __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 1st DCA, No. 1D11-5091, 1/6/2012).

Judge may not preside over felony arraignments in county where judge's spouse supervises State Attorney's Office.  [Added 1/3/12]

    Receding from prior opinions (77-12 and77-4), the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee concluded that a judge may not preside over felony arraignments in a county in which the judge's spouse is the supervisor of the State Attorney's Office.

    The Committee explained:  "[A]lthough the inquiring judge states that the prosecutor who will be covering the felony arraignments is supervised by the chief assistant, and not the inquiring judge’s spouse, it remains true that the spouse is the supervisor of that county’s State Attorney’s Office, and that the chief assistant would logically fall under the spouse’s chain of command.  Even if the spouse may not be involved in the direct supervision of the attorneys appearing for the felony arraignments and has a limited caseload, as in opinion 01-05, it is clear that the spouse 'is the boss' of that county’s State Attorney’s Office.  Consistent with the reasoning in Committee opinions 01-05 and 10-09, and the standards set forth in Canons 3E (1)(d)(ii) and 2A [of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct], the appearance of impropriety created when the presiding judge’s spouse is in a position of authority over that county’s State Attorney’s office militates in favor of a blanket disqualification from all felony arraignments in that county for the inquiring judge."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-21.

Motion to disqualify judge for denying continuance and “demeanor” with counsel properly denied as legally insufficient.  [Added 12/20/11]

    Criminal Defendant changed counsel “at least four times” prior to trial.  The trial court held a calendar call on the Thursday, with trial set for the following Monday.  Defendant’s counsel sought a continuance based on “paperwork” problems with the Judicial Administrative Commission regarding payment for deposition transcripts, and the State did not object.  The trial court, however, was determined to start the trial on Monday.  On the day of trial, just prior to jury selection defense counsel informed the court regarding an alleged lack of time to review some transcripts.  Nevertheless, jury selection went forward and was completed at 8 pm that evening.

    The next morning defense counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge, alleging that the court’s failure to grant a continuance “along with [the court’s] demeanor with undersigned counsel ha[d] caused the Defendant to reasonably fear that he [would] not get a fair and impartial trial.”  The trial court denied the motion as legally insufficient.  Defendant was tried and convicted.  He appealed, contending that the court erred in denying the motions for continuance and disqualification.

    The Fourth DCA affirmed.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance.  Defendant had changed counsel at least 4 times and had received prior continuances, and defense counsel assented to the court’s proposal to deal with the delays in obtaining transcripts.  “[Defendant’s] own actions and those of his private counsel of choice were responsible for the lack of adequate preparation time, if any.”

    Furthermore, the motion to disqualify the judge was legally insufficient.  “[T]he trial court’s denial of a continuance is not a sufficient legal ground for judicial disqualification.  . . .  [Defendant]’s other allegation that the trial judge’s ‘demeanor with undersigned counsel’ had caused him ‘to reasonably fear that he [would] not get a fair and impartial trial’ was also legally insufficient because [Defendant] failed to specifically describe any facts regarding the trial court’s demeanor.”  (Citations omitted.)  In short, “none of the allegations raised in the motion established an objectionably reasonable basis for [Defendant] to fear the judge was biased.”  Ramos v. State, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 4^th DCA, No. 4D09-4723, 12/14/2011).

Disclosure, but not recusal, is required where lawyer appearing before judge is married to another lawyer who represents judge in unrelated civil matter.  [Added 11/13/11]

    A lawyer representing a party in a case before Judge is the spouse of another lawyer who represents Judge in an unrelated civil matter.  The married lawyers are not in the same law firm and the lawyer representing Judge has never been affiliated with the spouse’s firm.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee if recusal or disclosure is required when the spouse of Judge's lawyer appears before Judge.  The Committee responded that Judge must disclose the situation to the parties in the case before Judge, but that Judge's recusal was not required.

    Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct states:  "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."  (Emphasis by Committee.)  Additionally, Canon 2 states:  "A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities."  (Emphasis by Committee.)

    Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 05-15 concluded that a judge who is represented by a lawyer in a lawsuit must disqualify himself/herself from all cases in which that lawyer, or members of that lawyer’s law firm, appear before the judge.  The Committee, however, distinguished Opinion 05-15 from the instant inquiry:  "[T]he Committee believes that the judge’s impartiality in a case may not reasonably be questioned wherein an attorney representing a party appearing before the judge is married to an attorney who is representing the judge in an unrelated civil matter, so long as the attorney spouses are not in the same firm, the attorney representing the judge has never been affiliated with the attorney’s spouse’s firm, and the attorney spouse in the case before the judge has no financial stake in the outcome of the judge’s case with the attorney’s spouse."

    As the Florida Supreme Court noted in In re Frank, 753 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 2000), there are different standards for disqualification and disclosure.  "Thus, even though disqualification may not be required in a case, the judge still has a duty to disclose facts and information relevant to the parties’ consideration of whether or not the judge should be disqualified.  The Commentary to Canon 3E(1) of the Code provides, in pertinent part:

A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.  The fact that the judge conveys this information does not automatically require the judge to be disqualified upon a request by either party, but the issue should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

    The Committee concluded:  "[A]lthough the judge is not required to disqualify herself/himself from cases in which the judge’s attorney’s spouse is appearing before the judge, the judge should disclose the relationship for as long as the attorney represents the judge and for a reasonable period of time following the conclusion of the attorney’s representation.  Disclosure of such information is not an admission of bias but is necessary to enable a party to make an informed decision as to whether or not to seek disqualification.  The Committee has previously suggested that a reasonable period of time is from several months to one year, depending upon the unique facts and circumstances of the representation."  (Citations omitted.)  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-17.

Judge not disqualified from presiding over criminal defendant's trial just because he presided over related civil case.  [Added 9/23/11]

    Criminal Defendant was charged with vehicular manslaughter.  A civil case was filed involving the same traffic accident.  Judge was presiding over the civil case.  Due to his familiarity with the case and an unexpected opening on his docket, Judge volunteered to take the criminal case.  Defendant did not immediately object to the assignment, but later filed an "Objection to Case Reassignment" on the ground that Judge " had already made a legal determination in the civil case that there was sufficient negligence to permit the plaintiff to plead a claim for punitive damages.  Because the issue of the degree of [Defendant]’s negligence would also be raised in a motion for judgment of acquittal in the criminal trial," Defendant sought Judge's disqualification.  Judge denied the motion as procedurally insufficient under Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.330.  Defendant appealed.

    The Fourth DCA affirmed.  The motion did not comply with rule 2.330 as it was not supported by Defendant's sworn signature or an affidavit, and was not certified by defense counsel.

    The appellate court further noted that, even if the procedural requirements had been met, the motion did not set forth a valid basis for disqualification.  "[T]he substantive test for whether a motion to disqualify is 'legally sufficient' is whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial."  (Citations omitted.)  "[T]he fear of judicial bias must be objectively reasonable" and "[t]he facts and reasons given for the disqualification must tend to show personal bias or prejudice."  (Emphasis by court.)  The court concluded:  "[Defendant] failed to allege any objectively reasonable fear of judicial bias.  The mere fact that Judge [] made an adverse ruling in a related civil case on a threshold issue of whether the plaintiff in that case could plead a claim for punitive damages did not demonstrate that the judge was personally biased or prejudiced against [Defendant].  Instead, the trial judge’s ruling in the civil case was merely the exercise of a legitimate judicial function.  Thus, [Defendant]’s motion to reassign the case was properly denied as legally insufficient."  Santisteban v. State, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D09-229, 9/14/2011).

Motion to disqualify trial judge is untimely when delayed until after final judgment.  [Added 7/11/11]  --  DeTournay v. City of Coral Gables, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D11-886, 6/29/2011)."

Judge disqualified from presiding over contempt proceeding but not from underlying divorce case.  [Added 5/28/11]  --  Zanghi v. State, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D11-1248, 5/25/2011).

Senior judge who holds several residential mortgages on properties not ethically prohibited from presiding over mortgage foreclosure cases.  [Added 2/17/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-02.

First DCA rules that judge should be disqualified for comment appearing to favor one party.  [Added 1/26/11]  --  Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc. v. Alexander, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 1st DCA, No. 1D10-6377, 1/24/2011).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discusses when judge may hear cases with defendants represented by Public Defender's Office where judge had worked.  [Added 11/13/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-36.

Judge's ruling on motion to disqualify was timely despite being rendered 35 days after service.  [Added 11/5/10]  --  Hatfield v. State, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 2d DCA, No. 2D09-5938, 11/3/2010).

Florida Supreme Court reaffirms that motions to disqualify judge filed pro se by represented criminal defendant are a nullity.  [Added 10/3/10]  --  Ault v. State, __ So.3d ___ (Fla., No. SC07-2130, 9/30/2010), 2010 WL 3781991.

Judge disqualified from minor's delinquency proceedings due to statements made by judge in open court.  [Added 9/17/10]  --  R.V. v. State, 44 So.3d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Ex parte communications with judge for purely administrative, non-substantive matters do not warrant judge's disqualification.  [Added 8/23/10]  --  Nudel v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, __ So.3d ___, 35 Fla.L.Weekly D1815 (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D10-641, 8/11/2010), 2010 WL 3155028.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addresses questions of judge owning stock in company that underwrites bail bonds.  [Added 8/4/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-25.

Trial judge's disqualification is warranted where judge observed party's conduct in court prior to filing of case.  [Added 7/8/10]  --  A.B. v. Dept. of Children and Family Services, 37 So.3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Judge married to circuit's elected Public Defender may not preside over cases assigned to P.D.'s office, even if private contract attorneys actually handle the cases.  [Added 5/4/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-09.

Judge in building partnership with county attorney disqualified from cases where county is represented by county attorney's staff, but not necessarily when outside counsel used.  [Added 4/21/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-02.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee considers changes to procedures governing judicial disqualification motions.  [Added 3/18/10]  -- 

    A subcommittee of the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is considering possible changes to the procedures governing judicial disqualification motions.  One idea being examined is having the judge who is the subject of the motion to disqualify him or her rule only on the motion's facial sufficiency and having a second judge who would rule on the substance of the underlying reasons offered in the motion.

    For more information, click here to read an article in the March 15, 2010, issue of the Florida Bar News.

Judge who received favorable loan rates from lender affiliated with one of the parties is disqualified from presiding over case.  [Added 2/5/10]  --  Mines v. Countrywide Home Loan, Inc., 31 So.3d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

    NOTE:  See also Canon 5D(5)(f) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judge did not err in entering final order after motion to disqualify him was filed, where order simply reduced to writing prior oral ruling.  [Added 12/15/09]  --  Fernwoods Condominium Association #2, Inc. v. Alonso, 26 So.3d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Trial judge's "decidedly negative commentary" about party sufficient to require judge's disqualification in marriage dissolution proceeding.  [Added 10/28/09]  --  Colarusso v. Colarusso, 20 So.3d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Lawyers' campaign contributions totaling $4650 do not require disqualification of recipient judge under Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.  [Added 10/2/09]  --  E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Acqumar S.A., 24 So.3d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Judge who recused himself in one case due to personal relationship with parties also disqualified in separate case involving those parties.  [Added 9/30/09]  --  Catasus v. Tabone, 19 So.3d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Judge may "trade up" in hockey ticket exchange with lawyer- friend only if judge disqualifies him/herself from cases involving friend and friend's firm does not appear before judge.  [Added 9/25/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2009-16.

Error to summarily deny claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not moving to disqualify trial judge, who had previously prosecuted defendant.  [Added 6/30/09]  --  Clayton v. State, 12 So.3d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Even with parties' consent, senior judge may not preside over civil trial when judge provides mediation services in same circuit in same type of cases.  [Added 6//19/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-10.

No specific language required in order for judge's order of recusal to be effective.  Goolsby v. State, 914 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Judge must recuse from all cases (including uncontested matters) involving lawyers from firm judge hired to represent him.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-15.

Disparaging remarks allegedly made by JCC's judicial assistant to party's lawyer not ground for JCC's disqualification.   Leone v. F.J.M. Construction, 911 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Judge may not reconsider order of disqualification signed in error.  Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 911 So.2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

ALJ erred by ruling on merits of disqualification motion; disqualification ordered.  Lee Memorial Health System v. Fla. Agency for Health Care Administration, 910 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Judge who recused from one case due to adversarial relationship with lawyer disqualified from other case involving that lawyer.  Walls v. State, 910 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Disqualification not required where movant did not allege objective basis for fear of judicial bias.  Scott v. State, 909 So.2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Motion to vacate disqualified judge's rulings waived if not filed within 20 days of disqualification order.  Weiss v. Berkett, 907 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Judge's negative comments to lawyer in 2001 grounds for disqualification in 2005.  Gonzalez v. State, 896 So.2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Disqualified judge remains disqualified even after reason for disqualification has disappeared.  Cusimano v. Florio, 900 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Judge often must disclose spouse's business relationship with lawyer when presiding over cases handled by lawyer's firm.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-06.

Judge who regularly represented certain clients must disclose existence of that relationship even after 4 years on bench.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-05.

Judge not disqualified from cases in which party's lawyer was on 34-member steering committee for judge's election opponent.  Braynen v. State, 895 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Trial court's credibility determination adverse to defendant in another case not legally sufficient ground for disqualification.  Kokal v. State, 901 So.2d 766 (Fla. 2005).

Judge who remarked that he thought party would flee country before next hearing should be disqualified.  Cabada v. Costelloe, 888 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Disqualification warranted where court called wife "alimony drone" and "woman scorned" and moved up trial date despite wife's request for continuance.  Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So.2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Supreme Court amends procedural rules governing judicial disqualification motions.  Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160, 885 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2004) (movants required to "serve" judge with copy of motion (current rule says "send"); any motion for disqualification must be reduced to writing and "promptly filed;" judge must rule on motion to disqualify "immediately, but no later than 30 days after the service of the motion;" if not ruled on within 30 days, motion "shall be deemed granted and the moving party may seek an order from the court directing the clerk to reassign the case").

Judge's disqualification warranted  where lawyer for petitioning party had personally represented judge in another matter.  City of Fort Lauderdale v. Palazzo Las Olas Group, LLC, 882 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Judge's comments at hearing giving appearance of pre-judgment of issue not before judge at hearing warranted disqualification.  Kates v. Seidenman, 881 So.2d 56 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2004).

Motion to disqualify appellate judge due to prior, allegedly incorrect adverse rulings denied as legally insufficient.  Adams v. Smith, 884 So.2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Judge who recused self in one case due to friendship with lawyer, and did not disclose or recuse in later case, disqualified from later case.  Mulligan v. Mulligan, 877 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Disqualification warranted when trial judge in custody dispute invited children to contact her without parents' knowledge.  Frengel v. Frengel, 880 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Judge's initiation of plea dialogue and manner of discussing sentencing alternatives warranted disqualification.  Pierce v. State, 873 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Judge who did not give ex-husband full opportunity to present defense to contempt motion and relied on prior hearings with husband in making decision should have granted disqualification motion.  Swida v. Raventos, 872 So.2d 413 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2004).

Judge who interviewed child in custody case with only one parent present disqualified for ex parte communication.  Pearson v. Pearson, 870 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Judge's comments on witnesses and counsel in one case does not require disqualification in other cases involving same party.  [Added 3/19/04]  --  City of Hollywood v. Witt, 868 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2004).

Filing suit against trial judge does not of itself create legally sufficient ground for disqualification.  May v. South Florida Water Management District, 866 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2004).

2 years acceptable length of time for judge's recusal from cases involving members of judge's former law firm; disclosure, but not disqualification, required when judge's cousins appear as lawyers before judge.  Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-06.

Judge should disqualify self from cases involving lawyer (or member of lawyer's firm) with whom judge has close social relationship and who has served and will again serve as judge's campaign treasurer.  Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2004-01.

Negative personal exchanges between party's lawyers and judge before judge took bench sufficient to give party reasonable fear that he would not receive fair and impartial trial.  [Added 12/1/03]  --  Siegel v. State, 861 So.2d 90 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2003).

Judge's independent quest for information leads to disqualification.  Chillingworth v. State, 846 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2003).  See also Inquiry Concerning a Judge (Joseph P. Baker), 813 So.2d 36 (Fla. 2002) (judge was admonished by the Supreme Court of Florida for independent investigation in violation of Canon 3B(7).