Florida Supreme Court Removes County Court Judge From Bench

Today in Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 11-550 RE: Judith W. Hawkins (No. SC12-2495), the Florida Supreme Court considered the recommendations of the Judicial Qualifications Commission with regard to "alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(7), 3B(8), 3C(1), 4D(1), and 5D(1), and violation of article V, section 13, of the Florida Constitution." The charges were described as follows:

The charges comprised five categories: I. use of judicial office to promote a private business, Gaza Road Ministries, in which Judge Hawkins was a speaker and a writer, having written and published a book titled “Old Stories, New Insights” based on biblical stories; II. failure to respect and comply with the law; III. failure to act in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary; IV. failure to devote full attention to her judicial office; and V. lack of candor with the Judicial Qualifications Commission (the Commission). 

The court gave "the findings and recommendations of the JQC great weight," but rejected the JQC's recommendation of serious sanctions short of removal. Noting the court's "constitutional responsibility ... to determine the appropriate sanction" and reminding of "the utmost importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system," the court stated: 

For the reasons we explain, based on the violations found by the Hearing Panel which were supported by clear and convincing evidence, we conclude that removal from the bench is the only appropriate sanction in this case.

*** 

For the reasons set forth herein, we find, based on clear and convincing evidence, that Judge Judith W. Hawkins violated Canons 1, 2A, and 5D of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and that those violations cumulatively warrant the most severe sanction that we impose today. Accordingly, we hereby remove Leon County Judge Judith W. Hawkins from the office of county judge, effective when this decision becomes final. It is our hope that this decision will serve as a reminder to judges of their continuing obligation to personally observe the high standards of conduct mandated by the Code of Judicial Conduct, and to conduct themselves in all things in a manner that will demonstrate candor and preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

As with any grouping of people, most won't need the reminder included at the end of the opinion.

The decision was unanimous, however, Justice Quince was recused.

Florida Supreme Court Adopts New Rules On Professionalism For Lawyers

The Florida Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion today addressing the issue of professionalism. In Re: Code for Resolving Professionalism Complaints (SC13-688), the "Supreme Court of Florida Commission on Professionalism has requested that the Court adopt a Code for Resolving Professionalism Complaints which would include a structure to provide a process to more critically address professionalism issues in Florida." 

The Court noted the importance of professionalism and that "[s]urveys of both lawyers and judges continue to consistently reflect that professionalism is one of the most significant adverse problems that negatively impacts the practice of law in Florida today."


The Court agreed with the Professionalism Committee that additional measures need to be taken and stated that "While we continue our educational the Professionalism Commission concluded that further integrated, affirmative, practical and active measures are now needed. We agree."

The Court did not, however, "attempt to create an entirely new code of 'professional' or 'unprofessional' conduct " and agreed it should not "at this time, attempt to codify an entirely new 'Code of Professionalism.'” Using the following existing rules and guidelines, the Court created one integrated place to look for professionalism rules and guidance: "(1) the Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar; (2) The Florida Bar Creed of Professionalism; (3) The Florida Bar Ideals and Goals of Professionalism; (4) The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar; and (5) the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court."

Further "The Chief Judge of every circuit shall create a Local Professionalism Panel to receive and resolve professionalism complaints informally if possible. In the discretion of the Chief Judge, the Circuit Committee on Professionalism may be designated as the Local Professionalism Panel. The Chief Judge of each circuit is responsible for activating the respective committees."  

The Rules adopted by the Florida Supreme Court are found at Exhibit "A" to the opinion below.

In Re Code for Resolving Professionalism Complaints (SC13-688)

Review Of Illegally Obtained Evidence Justified The Disqualification Of Counsel

In Castellano v. Winthrop (5D09-2978), the Fifth District denied a petition for certiorari seeking to reverse a trial court's order disqualifying the petitioner's counsel.  The court described the facts as follows:

The disqualification was based on the Firm's receipt, review, and use of respondent, Marc Winthrop's ("the Father") USB flash drive that contained electronic files including, inter alia, attorney/client communications, client litigation notes, and attorney work product.

***

In February 2009, the Mother came into possession of a USB drive that belonged to the Father. It is not necessary to detail the manner in which the Father's USB drive came into the Mother's possession. It is sufficient to state that after the Mother's version of the events was rejected by the court, the trial court could properly find that the USB drive was illegally obtained by the Mother without the knowledge or consent of the Father.

In addition to a number of other things, the trial court entered an order disqualifying the petitioner's trial counsel.

While recognizing that disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is an extraordinary remedy that should be resorted to sparingly, disqualification is appropriate where a party obtains an unfair informational or tactical advantage through the disclosure of privileged information to that party's counsel....Given the nature of the information obtained by the Firm from the USB drive, it cannot be reasonably disputed that an informational and tactical advantage was obtained by the Mother.

Finally, the court gave some advice to attorneys who might face similar issues:

For the benefit of other attorneys facing a similar dilemma, we note that the Florida Bar Commission on Professional Ethics has opined that when an attorney receives confidential documents he or she knows or reasonably should know were wrongfully obtained by his client, he or she is ethically obligated to advise the client that the materials cannot be retained, reviewed, or used without first informing the opposing party that the attorney and/or client have the documents at issue. If the client refuses to consent to disclosure, the attorney must withdraw from further representation.5 Fla. Bar Prof'l Ethics Comm., Formal Op. 07-1.

5- The attorney may also be required to advise his client to consult a criminal defense attorney.

Judge Zloch Sanctions Attorney & Attorney Refuses To Stop When He's Behind

US District Judge William Zloch entered THIS order on December 30, 2009 sanctioning attorney Loring Spolter "nearly $110,000 in sanctions on a Florida lawyer and has suspended him from practice in the Southern District of Florida for 42 months over his efforts to persuade the judge to step down from overseeing three employment cases."  The quote is from THIS ABA Journal article titled "Federal Judge Sanctions ‘Obsessed’ Lawyer $110K Over Recusal Claims."  The ABA Journal also had an article about the case in August titled "Judge Accused of Religious Bias."  You can find an article by Bob Norman at the Daily Pulp titled "Judge Zloch Wallops Attorney Spolter" and at the South Florida Lawyers blog HERE and a older post HERE.

The sanction order is 68 pages and is worth reading.  The South Florida Lawyers blog pulled this quote out of the order as "the kicker":

However, the Court wishes to make absolutely clear that Mr. Spolter is not being punished for his criticism of the undersigned. Despite Magistrate Judge Rosenbaum’s thorough and articulate 92-page Report and Recommendation confirming the same, this Court will state the basis for sanctions once more——for those who continue to mislead the public by characterizing Mr. Spolter as some sort of First Amendment martyr. Mr. Spolter has the absolute right to criticize a judge, but what he does not have the right to do is to file pleadings in Federal court for an improper purpose and in bad faith. For this, and for engaging in behavior that no reasonably competent lawyer in like circumstances would have engaged in, and for these reasons alone, Mr. Spolter will be suspended from practice in this District for 42 months, he will be referred to the Florida bar, a reasonable fine will be imposed, and reasonable attorney’s fees assessed against him and his law firm, Loring N. Spolter, P.A.

However, I find it more interesting that the attorney has not stopped.  Bob Norman posted THIS document sent to him by the attorney which was apparently written in response to the sanctions order.  Bob's article, HERE, states:

What I find most interesting about Spolter's allegations is that he says Zloch has violated federal ethics rulings by refusing to fill out federal financial disclosure forms, making it impossible to know if he has conflicts of interest in the cases over which he presides. If that is true (interestingly, Zloch doesn't address the issue in his order), then Zloch appears to be guilty of something far worse than anything Spolter did in questioning and skewering him, and an investigation is in order.

The attorney claims that Judge Zloch signed three blank disclosure forms in recent years and that he filed "blank reports for years 2007 and 2008."  [pg. 5, paragraph 2 of the attorneys response].  However, the attorney is wrong.  Judge Zloch files his financial disclosure form every year.  Judge Zloch's 2008 disclosure can be found at THIS link, his 2007 at THIS link, his 2006 at THIS link, his 2005 at THIS link, and his 2003 at THIS link.  Neither the 2007 nor the 2008 form are blank as the attorney claimed in the response.  Some information is redacted but that is specifically permitted by Congress. "The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires all federal judges to report all gifts received, free travel, assets and loans for themselves and their immediate families each May 15, and for that information to be made public immediately. Last year, Congress amended the Act to give judges the right to withhold some information from the public for legitimate security reasons, as determined by the U.S. Marshals Service."  See HERE (emphasis added).

As stated in the response, Judge Zloch chaired the U.S. Judicial Conference's "financial disclosure committee, which includes 15 federal judges." See HERE.  Contrary to the attorneys statement, Judge Zloch did not unilaterally preclude the release of the disclosure forms.  Judge Zloch signed an order based upon security fears for many of the federal judges and the group seeking the release of the forms even acknowledged safety was an issue.  An article about the decision to temporarily block the release of the disclosure forms can be found HERE, another article can be found HERE.  

[Update: The response sent to Bob Norman was actually sent to Bob a few weeks prior to the sanction order being entered by Judge Zloch.  I apologize.]

Florida Judges Cannot Be Friends With Florida Lawyers On Facebook

Florida's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an opinion (2009-20) on November 17, 1009 relating to the use of social networking sites by sitting judges.  The New York Times has an article titled "For Judges on Facebook, Friendship Has Limits."  The opinion's summary of issues is directly below and the entire opinion is below that.

Whether a judge may post comments and other material on the judge's page on a social networking site, if the publication of such material does not otherwise violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.

ANSWER: Yes.

Whether a judge may add lawyers who may appear before the judge as "friends" on a social networking site, and permit such lawyers to add the judge as their "friend."

ANSWER: No.

Whether a committee of responsible persons, which is conducting an election campaign on behalf of a judge's candidacy, may post material on the committee's page on a social networking site, if the publication of the material does not otherwise violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.

ANSWER: Yes.

Whether a committee of responsible persons, which is conducting an election campaign on behalf of a judge's candidacy, may establish a social networking page which has an option for persons, including lawyers who may appear before the judge, to list themselves as "fans" or supporters of the judge's candidacy, so long as the judge or committee does not control who is permitted to list himself or herself as a supporter.

ANSWER: Yes.

Judicial Ethics Opinion 2009-20

As of now, there are 445 stories around the world on this story.  You can see a list of the most popular from Google News HERE.

Friending Adverse Witness On Facebook or Myspace Violates Ethics Rules

There was an interesting article in the ABA Journal [here] today about a decision Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Guidance Committee stating that a lawyer may be violating ethics rules by "friending" an adverse witness on a social networking site.  The committee's decision can be found here. 

The lawyer requested the committee provide an ethics opinion after he took the deposition of a 19 year old witness.  He asked if he could have a third party "friend" the witness on Facebook and MySpace and indicated the witness accepted everyone who friended her. 

The inquirer has suggested that his proposed conduct is similar to the common -- and ethical -- practice of videotaping the public conduct of a plaintiff in a personal injury case to show that he or she is capable of performing physical acts he claims his injury prevents. The Committee disagrees. In the video situation, the videographer simply follows the subject and films him as he presents himself to the public. The videographer does not have to ask to enter a private area to make the video. If he did, then similar issues would be confronted, as for example, if the videographer took a hidden camera and gained access to the inside of a house to make a video by presenting himself as a utility worker.