Court cautions judicial candidates they face ‘severe sanction’ for violating campaign canons
Lawyers who violate judicial canons while campaigning for a judgeship can expect in the future to be suspended from the Bar, the Florida Supreme Court has warned.
The court, in a divided May 26 opinion, imposed a public reprimand for numerous violations of Bar rules and judicial canons committed by an unsuccessful candidate who ran against an incumbent Marion County judge in 2018. The referee found the lawyer cast aspersions against the incumbent, indicated if elected he might not be impartial in cases that came before him, and failed to act in a way that would uphold the impartiality, integrity, and independence of the judiciary, among other violations. After the referee conducted the factual hearing, a consent judgment proposed the reprimand, and the referee went along.
The per curiam opinion accepted the referee’s recommendation for a public reprimand via publication of the opinion “as sufficient under the applicable rules.”
But the justices added, “[W]e write to place future candidates for judicial office on notice that this Court takes misrepresentations that cast a sitting judge in a false light seriously because of their potential to undermine confidence in the rule of law. With respect to candidates who have won judicial elections using similar misrepresentations, and related campaign-related misconduct, we have removed the newly elected judges from office. See, e.g., In re Santino, 257 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 2018); In re Renke, 933 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2006); In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2001). Accordingly, in the future, similar misconduct presented in the posture of this type of case should be expected to result in a more severe sanction, including suspension.”
The opinion split the court. Justices Alan Lawson, John Couriel, and Jamie Grosshans concurred in the opinion. Justices Ricky Polston and Carlos Muñiz concurred in the result only. Chief Justice Charles Canady dissented with a short opinion, while Justice Jorge Labarga dissented with a long opinion.
Canady said he thought the reprimand was insufficient for the misconduct and wrote, “In my view — on the stipulated facts — a nonrehabilitative [90-day or less] suspension would be appropriate in this case.”
Labarga noted that in cases involving judges who had won elections after making misleading, false, or improper claims, the court has adopted the policy of removing those judges from office.
“Here, unlike Santino where the candidates ran for an open judicial seat, [the lawyer] ran against a sitting judge. As noted earlier, [the lawyer’s] campaign employed similar ‘win-at-all-costs-and-pay-the-fine-later’ tactics to those employed in Santino. [The lawyer] expressly and intentionally implied that his opponent favored criminals, disfavored law enforcement, disfavored the state attorney, and that he would do differently,” Labarga wrote.
Because the lawyer did not win, removal from office is not an option, he said, but the sanction should be more serious that a public reprimand.
“Given the similarities of [the lawyer’s] actions to those in Santino, his Bar discipline should be a suspension from the practice of law for at least sixty days, in addition to a public reprimand to be administered by The Florida Bar,” Labarga said. “While … a suspension may not deter such behavior in some cases in the future, it will, however, serve as a stronger message that this Court will not tolerate the ‘end justifies the means’ approach utilized by [the lawyer] in this case.”
The court acted in Case No. SC19-1879.
