Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed a notice of formal charges against Judge John P. Contini of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by sending an ex parte e-mail to the Broward Public Defenders Office, failing to seek a recusal or transfer when an appeal effectively froze his division, and making belittling remarks in open court about a pending matter. The JQC recommended that John Contini receive the sanction of a public reprimand plus a letter of apology, continued judicial mentoring, completion of a mental health program, and assessment of costs of these proceedings. The Supreme Court approved the JQC’s findings and recommendations of discipline, holding that the sanctions and conditions imposed were fitting and appropriate. View "In re Judge John Patrick Contini" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed a notice of formal changes against Judge John P. Contini of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for conduct in violation of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The JQC did not recommend suspension or removal for the misconduct but, rather, reasoned that a public reprimand plus conditions was appropriate. The Supreme Court approved the JQC’s findings and recommendations of a public reprimand plus conditions, holding that, in light of Judge Contini’s actions, the relevant case law, and the mitigating factors, these sanctions and conditions were fitting and appropriate. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge John P. Contini" on Justia Law

The Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) accused Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Gregory Holder of engaging in improper conduct while presiding over a criminal case in violation of five canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Holder entered into a factual stipulation with the JQC admitting the charges and accepting a public reprimand and six additional hours of Continuing Judicial Education (CJE) training hours on topics related to ethics. Based on the stipulation, the JQC concluded that Judge Holder violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(7) and 3B(9) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court (1) approved the stipulation entered into by Judge Holder and the JQC, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the findings of fact as to all charges; and (2) approved the stipulated discipline of a public reprimand and completion of six additional CJE training hours. View "In re Inquiry Concerning Judge Gregory Holder" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) alleged that Seminole County Judge Jerri Collins violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct in the course of presiding over a domestic violence case. Judge Collins accepted full responsibility for her wrongful conduct. The JQC and Judge Collins entered into a revised consent judgment imposing as sanctions on Judge Collins a public reprimand before the Supreme Court, the successful completion of an anger management course, and attendance at the domestic violence course offered during Phase II of the Florida Judicial College. The Supreme Court approved the revised consent judgment, holding that the JQC’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the sanctions were appropriate. View "In re Inquiry Concerning Judge Jerri Collins" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) found County Court Judge John C. Murphy of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Murphy’s misconduct included threatening to commit violence against an assistance public defender, engaging in physical altercation with council, and resuming his docket while defendants were without council. The JQC recommended that Judge Murphy be disciplined as follows: a public reprimand, a 120-suspension, a $50,000 fine, mental health therapy, and Judicial Education Courses. The Supreme Court rejected the JQC’s recommendation and instead removed Judge Murphy from office, concluding that, through his misconduct, Judge Murphy surrendered his privilege to serve in the state’s court system. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge John C. Murphy" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) instigated formal proceedings against circuit court Judge R. Timothy Shea for the judge's rude and intemperate behavior. After the Supreme Court disapproved the proposed sanction, the JQC withdrew its findings and recommendation of discipline and subsequently filed amended formal charges against Judge Shea. Based on facts set out in a second stipulation, the JQC filed a second findings and recommendation of discipline, determining that Judge Shea engaged in inappropriate behavior that was unbecoming a member of the judiciary. The JQC recommended that Judge Shea receive a public reprimand with the additional requirement that the judge send letters of apology to those individuals identified in the notice of amended formal charges and continue to obtain mental health treatment as recommended by his doctor and family therapist. The Supreme Court approved the JQC's findings and recommended discipline based on the severity of the judge's misconduct and the mitigating factors in his case. View "In re Shea" on Justia Law

This case arose out alleged defamatory statements an attorney (Attorney) allegedly took in the course of investigating an underlying defamation action he was hired to defend. The legal issue was whether absolute immunity applied to Attorney's alleged defamatory statements, which were made during ex-parte, out-of-course questioning of a potential, nonparty witness. The court of appeal concluded that absolute immunity applied to Attorney's statements. The Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's decision and held (1) Florida's absolute privilege was never intended to sweep so broadly as to provide absolute immunity from liability to an attorney under the circumstances presented here; and (2) a qualified privilege instead should apply to ex-parte, out-of-court statements, so long as the alleged defamatory statements bear some relation to the subject of inquiry in the underlying lawsuit. View "DelMonico v. Traynor" on Justia Law

The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Knowles, alleging misconduct relating to her representation of a client in immigration and civil matters. Specifically, the Bar cited Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.6 (confidentiality of information), 4-3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). In a motion to withdraw as attorney of record, Knowles had made disparaging statements about the client; she then told the client that she would continue the representation only if the client paid an additional $1,500. When the client decided to retain new counsel, Knowles made additional claims, including telling the Department of Homeland Security that she had reason to believe her client would lie to the Immigration Court. Knowles disclosed confidential paperwork pertaining to the client’s political asylum case; failed to appear at mediation in the client’s injury case, and failed to advise her client that a final judgment had been entered. A referee recommended that Knowles be suspended from the practice of law for 90days and attend the Florida Bar’s Ethics School and a professionalism workshop. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that a one-year suspension was the appropriate sanction. View "Florida Bar v. Knowles" on Justia Law

Judge Nelson was observed driving a vehicle erratically, weaving between lanes, striking a guardrail several times, and ultimately crashing on a bridge. After initially identifying herself as a judge to the police officer at the scene, she explained to the officer that she lost control of the vehicle because she was talking on her cellular phone. However, the officer smelled alcohol on her breath, and noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Her clothes were in disarray. At first, Judge Nelson was unable to tell the officer where she was coming from or where she was going, but she later recalled that she may have been at a restaurant. She refused to exit the vehicle and refused to submit to field sobriety exercises. Judge Nelson was taken to the county jail where she refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. The Notice of Formal Charges stated that these acts, if they occurred as alleged, were in violation of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Florida Supreme Court recommended a sanction of public reprimand. View "Inquiry Concerning A Judge" on Justia Law

Delhall, was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, unlawful use of a firearm, unlawful discharge of the firearm resulting in death or serious bodily harm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At the jury trial the State presented evidence that Delhall murdered the victim because he was, at that time, the only known eyewitness to the murder of another individual (Bennett) with which Delhall’s brother was charged. The jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of eight to four, and the trial court entered an order sentencing Delhall to death. The Florida Supreme Court vacated the sentence, stating that the prosecutor, “by her overzealous and unfair advocacy, appeared to be committed to winning a death recommendation rather than simply seeking justice.” Her improper advocacy continued even after an objection was sustained. In one instance, the judge was forced to step in and specifically admonish her to stop it. Cumulative errors fundamentally tainted the guilt phase, which was especially significant in view of the fact that the jury recommended death by a vote of eight to four, a recommendation that was far from unanimous. View "Delhall v. State of Florida" on Justia Law