5-H Corp. v. Padovano

Citation708 So.2d 244
Decision Date25 November 1997
Docket NumberNo. 90887,90887
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly S724, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S63 5-H CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. Philip J. PADOVANO, Judge, etc., et al., Respondents.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Louis C. Arslanian, Hollywood, for Petitioners.

HARDING, Justice.

The petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to prevent all of the judges of the First District Court of Appeal from presiding over the petitioners' appeal currently pending in that court. We have jurisdiction 1 and deny the petition.

The petitioners' attorney is Louis C. Arslanian. In a prior related consolidated appeal, a three-judge panel of the district court (Chief Judge Barfield and Judges Lawrence and Van Nortwick) ruled against Arslanian's clients, 2 whereupon Arslanian filed a motion for rehearing on behalf of his clients. In the motion for rehearing, Arslanian argued that the panel had overlooked or failed to consider many important matters, and suggested that the panel not only disfavored one of his clients, but also favored opposing counsel. 3 In referring to opposing counsel's arguments, Arslanian also argued that "what is truly appalling is that ... the panel in the instant appeal would buy such nonsense and give credence to such 'total b[---]-s[---].' " In a footnote, Arslanian referred to opposing counsel's argument as "ridiculous" and "a joke," adding that "the use of the term 'total b[---]s[---]' without the inclusion of at least 2 or 3 intervening expletives is very kind and generous under the circumstances."

The panel denied the motion for rehearing and, as especially pertinent here, the district court had its clerk forward a copy of the motion to The Florida Bar to review "the appropriateness of some of the comments and language contained in the [motion]" and determine "whether disciplinary proceedings should be instituted with regard to Mr. Louis C. Arslanian's lack of professionalism in this pleading." The Florida Bar thereafter filed a formal complaint against Arslanian, and Arslanian in turn reported the matter to the Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC"). According to the present prohibition petition, The Florida Bar ultimately dismissed its complaint against Arslanian upon a finding of no probable cause; the present petition is silent as to what action, if any, was taken on Arslanian's report to the JQC.

Arslanian now represents the present petitioners in a related appeal before the First District Court of Appeal, where Arslanian, on behalf of his clients, filed a motion to disqualify the judges of that court from presiding over the pending appeal. Specifically, Arslanian argued in the disqualification motion:

Aside from the reality of the fear that exists in [Arslanian] and his clients appearing before the same Court in the same case in which the Court instituted a grievance without probable cause, the fact that the Court's partiality might be reasonably questioned mandates disqualification as a matter of law. Such a conclusion from any reasonable observer is inescapable. In light of the fact that Louis C. Arslanian wrote what he wrote and the First District Court of Appeal instituted a grievance thereon only to be dismissed as lacking probable cause ..., could a reasonable observer reach any conclusion other than the conclusion that [the district court's] "impartiality might reasonably be questioned " [ 4] in a subsequent proceeding on the very same matter[?] The answer is obvious.

....

An outside observer could reasonably conclude that the Court would feel embarrassed, humiliated, and even outraged by the comments of Louis C. Arslanian and by the result of a finding of no probable cause in the Court's grievance against Louis C. Arslanian. The same observer could reasonably conclude that Louis C. Arslanian would fear retaliation by the Court and temper his argument and remarks to the extent that his role of an advocate would be so diluted. Such a fear is reasonable when considering the fact that Louis C. Arslanian faced serious sanctions for merely stating that the Court overlooked and misapprehended certain legal and factual matters. Obviously, in the instant appeal, it can be reasonably anticipated that Louis C. Arslanian will claim that the trial court overlooked and misapprehended certain legal and factual matters; otherwise no appeal would have been filed. At each stroke of the pen, the fear that he [Arslanian] may be sanctioned will be present. Further, it is obvious that Louis C. Arslanian is just an extension of his clients, the Appellants, who are the true persons that stand to suffer from the fear.

(Footnote added). The district court judges not otherwise disqualified considered the motion for disqualification in accordance with In re Estate of Carlton, 378 So.2d 1212 (Fla.1979), 5 cert. denied, 447 U.S. 922, 100 S.Ct. 3013, 65 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1980), and some of them ultimately voluntarily recused themselves from the appeal "in the best interests of justice"; however, four of the remaining district court judges (Chief Judge Barfield and Judges Webster, Davis, and Padovano) denied the disqualification motion as legally insufficient. The district court therefore ordered that the appeal be assigned to a panel made up of three of the four judges who found the motion legally insufficient.

Arslanian, on behalf of his clients, now seeks prohibition relief from this Court, arguing that the disqualification motion below was legally sufficient and that the four district court judges who held otherwise must be disqualified. He accordingly asks this Court to, among other things, prohibit those four judges (and, indeed, any and all of the remaining district court judges) from presiding over the subject appeal. We deny the petition and hold that a Florida judge's report of perceived attorney unprofessionalism to The Florida Bar (or, conversely, an attorney's report of perceived judicial unprofessionalism to the JQC) is, in and of itself, legally insufficient to support that judge's disqualification.

All Florida judges are, first and foremost, attorneys and members of The Florida Bar. See generally art. V, § 8, Fla. Const. As such, Florida judges, just like every other Florida attorney, have an obligation to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and report to The Florida Bar any professional misconduct of a fellow attorney. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.3(a). This obligation is reiterated in the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which explicitly provides that "[a] judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate action." Fla.Code Jud. Conduct, CANON 3D(2). THE FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT6 further mandates that judges "should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct," "shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge," and shall require lawyers subject to their direction and control to be "patient, dignified, and courteous." Fla.Code Jud. Conduct, Canons 1, 3B(3), 3B(4).

Given these mandates, we cannot fault the district court for reporting Arslanian to The Florida Bar. Surely, in filing the subject rehearing motion, complete with expletives, derogatory remarks about opposing counsel's argument, and conjectured innuendoes regarding the district court's impartiality, Arslanian showed at the very least a "substantial likelihood" that he had compromised the integrity of the legal profession, engaged in professional misconduct, or violated one or more of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. 7 The very Oath of Admission into The Florida Bar requires applicants to solemnly swear to "maintain the respect due to Courts of Justice and Judicial Officers ... [and] abstain from all offensive personality," and the Preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar likewise provides that "[a] lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials." R. Regulating Fla. Bar Ch. 4. Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.5(c) further provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal," and, as especially pertinent in the present case, the commentary thereto provides in pertinent part:

The advocate's function is to present evidence and argument so that the cause may be decided according to law. Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a corollary of the advocate's right to speak on behalf of litigants.... An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review, and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics.

See also Florida Bar v. Wasserman, 675 So.2d 103 (Fla.1996) (suspending attorney under rules 3-4.3 (committing an act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty or justice) and 4-8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct) for abusive profanity to a judicial assistant). As for Arslanian's innuendoes regarding the district court's impartiality, rule 4-8.2(a) further provides that "[a] lawyer shall not make a statement ... with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge." See also rule 4-4.4 ("[A] lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person ...."); rule 4-8.4(d) ("A lawyer shall not ... engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice....").

That The Florida Bar ultimately dismissed its complaint against Arslanian is not determinative here, and we do not now question or second-guess that disposition. This is not a disciplinary proceeding. What matters in the present case is that the district court had the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Johnnides v. Amoco Oil Co., Inc., No. 3D00-1289
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 14 de fevereiro de 2001
    ...so much article-writing, sermongiving, seminar-holding and general handwringing for at least the past twenty years. See 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244 (Fla.1998)(referring to Bar's finding of no probable cause for discipline of attorney who used expletives in motion for rehearing). Pe......
  • Davis v. Inch
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • 9 de junho de 2021
    ...and “cold, ” this subjective fear, without more, is insufficient to warrant judicial disqualification. See 5-H Corp. v. Pavodano, 708 So.2d 244, 248 (Fla. 1997) (“a Florida judge's mere reporting of attorney unprofessionalism to The Florida Bar, in and of itself, is legally insufficient to ......
  • Visoly v. Security Pacific Credit Corp., 3D99-1155.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 16 de agosto de 2000
    ...ethical violations, we further direct the Clerk of this Court to provide a copy of this opinion to the Florida Bar. See 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1997); Fla.Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 18. The enormous amount of money in litigating this case resulted from false and sham affida......
  • Fravel v. Haughey, 97-2718.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 18 de fevereiro de 1999
    ...independent undertaking of this policing role would go well beyond the requirements of Canon 3(D)2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244 (Fla.1997), and create a demand for significant increases in judicial resources. The second approach presents an additi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • What every lawyer should know about the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct; "but I'm a friend of the court" and other predicaments.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 76 No. 3, March 2002
    • 1 de março de 2002
    ...integrity of the legal profession and report to The Florida Bar any professional misconduct of a fellow attorney. 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So. 2d 244, 246 (Fla. 1997) (citation omitted; quoted in Fla. JEAC Op. (89) See Johnnides v. Amoco Oil Co., 778 So. 2d 443, 445 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2001) ......
  • Tell the truth.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 75 No. 11, December 2001
    • 1 de dezembro de 2001
    ...163 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1964). (31) Id. at 52 (Rawls, John S., J., concurring specially). (32) See 5-H Corporation v. Padovano, 708 So. 2d 244 (Fla. (33) Aspen, supra note 12, at 95. (34) Id. (quoting Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1993)). (35) Weiand v. State,......
  • Invective on appeal: impugning the integrity of judges.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 79 No. 5, May 2005
    • 1 de maio de 2005
    ...completed appeal, it is not clear which test should apply, although the Florida Supreme Court applied the latter in 5-H Corp. v. Padovano 708 So. 2d 244, 248 (Fla. Other courts are less clinically analytical and less tolerant of tirades. Lawyers who bad-mouth judges, whether to reporters or......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT