Code of Judicial Conduct, In re
| Decision Date | 29 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 81685,81685 |
| Citation | 643 So.2d 1037 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S473, 19 Fla. L. Weekly S556 In re CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jere Tolton, Past-Chair, Code Revision Project and Committee on Standards of Conduct Governing Judges, Shalimar; Nath C. Doughtie, Chair, Code Revision Project, Committee on Standards of Conduct Governing Judges, Gainesville, Thomas S. Edwards, Jr. of Peek & Cobb, P.A., Jacksonville, on behalf of the Supreme Court Committee on Standards of Conduct Governing Judges; and Erwin Fleet, Chair, Retired Judges' Section of the Circuit Judges' Conference, Ft. Walton Beach, for petitioner.
William F. Blews, President, St. Petersburg, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Tallahassee, on behalf of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar; Bill Kasper, Executive Director, Gotha, on behalf of Child; Jimmy Hatcher, a Florida citizen, Bristol, Beverley Comstock, pro se, Antonio Capestany, a Florida citizen, N.M.B., Robert J. Bertrand, pro se, Emanuel N. Feigin, pro se, Cheryl A. Tesher, pro se, Mark Zimmerman, a Florida citizen, St. Petersburg, Heinz Dinter, Ph.D., pro se, Stephen Lane, pro se, Dr. David E. Flinchbaugh, pro se, William D. Palmer, pro se, and other interested individual lawyers and members of the public, responding with written comments.
We have for adoption a new Code of Judicial Conduct to replace the present Code of Judicial Conduct adopted in In re The Florida Bar--Code of Judicial Conduct, 281 So.2d 21 (Fla.1973), and its subsequent amendments 1. In August of 1990 the American Bar Association adopted a new Model Code of Judicial Conduct. As a result of that action, Chief Justice Leander J. Shaw requested the Committee on Standards of Conduct Governing Judges to consider a revision of our code of conduct in a manner consistent with the ABA Model Code. The Standards The Honorable Jere Tolton, Chair
of Conduct Committee was instructed to submit a report to the Court containing its recommendations for the adoption of new canons of judicial ethics to reflect present day concerns and responsibilities of Florida judges. The Standards Committee was composed of the following members:
The Honorable Stephen Rushing, Vice-Chair
The Honorable Harvey L. Goldstein, Immediate Past Chair
The Honorable Anne C. Booth
Thomas L. Clarke, Jr., Esquire
The Honorable John W. Dell
The Honorable Nath C. Doughtie
Thomas S. Edwards, Jr., Esquire
The Honorable Joseph P. Farina
The Honorable Richard H. Frank
The Honorable Oliver L. Green, Jr.
The Honorable Charles Kahn, Jr.
The Honorable David Patterson
The committee members are to be commended for their extensive and diligent efforts in presenting a new code to the Court. Following the submission of the report, we had the proposed code published, requested written comments, and allowed oral argument for those who made written comments. Comments were filed and presentations made by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and individual lawyers as well as individual members of the public.
A code of conduct for judges is not something new. In the middle 1600s, Sir Matthew Hale of England set down eighteen rules for his judicial guidance. 2 The first American canons of judicial ethics were prepared by a committee headed by William Howard Taft. These canons were adopted by the American Bar Association in 1924 and thereafter adopted and made applicable to the federal courts and most state courts. The Florida Supreme Court approved the canons for use in this state in 1941. In 1972 the American Bar Association totally revised the original canons and created "The Code of Judicial Conduct." This Court substantially adopted that new code in 1973. See In re The Florida Bar--Code of Judicial Conduct. The American Bar Association revised the Code of Judicial Conduct in 1990 and produced the "Model Code of Judicial Conduct There were four principal issues raised in the comments and at oral arguments. The first suggested that we should change "should" to "shall" in a number of the proposed canons, particularly Section 3D(2). We have agreed to that request and made the suggested change. The second issue concerns the portion of the Applications section in which traffic magistrates are prohibited from practicing in the court in which the magistrate serves. Several letters have expressed the concern that this restriction would limit the number of qualified people available for those positions. We reject this objection and find that the prohibition contained in the proposed code should remain as written. The third issue concerns the propriety of a senior judge acting as both a mediator and an assigned senior judge. We approve the Standards Committee's recommendation, but have modified Section B of the application section and its commentary to more fully explain when and under what circumstances a senior judge may be a mediator. We will continue to monitor the application of this provision. The fourth issue concerns restrictive provisions in Canon 7 regarding the conduct of individuals who are seeking judicial positions before nominating commissions. The Florida Bar Board of Governors asserts that certain provisions of proposed canon 7 will have the effect of reducing the flow of valuable and relevant information to the nominating commissions and has asked that we reject these provisions. We find that the Board of Governors' position has merit and, consequently, have deleted these provisions from the new code.
1990." The proposed new Florida Code of Judicial Conduct substantially incorporates the provisions of this new ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Standards of Conduct Committee has supplemented its initial petition and has directed our attention to an asserted conflict between the proposed Canon 2B and recent decisions of this Court. Specifically, the Committee has questioned whether and under what circumstances a judge may write a character reference letter and under what circumstances a judge may use official court letterhead. The confusion over these issues was caused in part by our approval of the language used in the stipulation of fact and discipline in In re Judge Abel, 632 So.2d 600 (Fla.1994). Although we believe that the proposed Canon 2B sufficiently addresses the issues raised by the Committee, we have added the following underscored language to the commentary regarding judicial letterhead: "Similarly, judicial letterhead must not be used for conducting a judge's personal business, [ADDED: although a judge may use judicial letterhead to write character reference letters when such letters are otherwise permitted under this Code.]" We note that, in some instances, bar admission authorities and law schools solicit recommendations from judges. If it is appropriate to send such a letter or to file a report, we find that a judge may use stationery that reflects the judge's office. We stress, however, that judicial letterhead must not be used for personal business. We find that the Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct opinions 75-18, 75-22, 77-17, 79-3, 88-19, 92-2, 92-30, and 93-1 are proper interpretations of the Canon.
We recognize that, as noted in the commentary to Canon 2C, the issue of whether an organization practices invidious discrimination under Canon 2C is a complex issue to which judges must be sensitive. We believe that the commentary to this Canon gives appropriate guidance as to what types of extra-judicial activities will comply with this Code provision. In addition, we have added the following language to the proposed commentary to Canon 2C: "This Canon is not intended to prohibit membership in religious and ethnic clubs, such as Knights of Columbus, Masons, B'nai B'rith, and Sons of Italy; civic organizations, such as Rotary, Kiwanis, and The Junior League; young people's organizations, such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boy's Clubs, and Girl's Clubs; and charitable organizations, such as United Way and Red Cross."
We have accepted the suggestion that proposed Canon 3B(5) should be amended to include the following language: "This section does not preclude the consideration of race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other similar factors when they are issues in The new Code of Judicial Conduct we have approved is substantially the same as the Model Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the ABA in 1990. 3 In considering this new code we have also examined the Code of Conduct for United States Judges adopted by the federal Judicial Conference in 1992 and have incorporated some of its modifications to the Model Code. We note that the new Florida code places most of the provisions of canon 4 of the Model Code in three separate canons: 4, 5 and 6. We find that the Standards Of Conduct Committee's separation of canon 4 into three canons is appropriate, both for understanding the application of the canon and for addressing unique problems pertaining to the Florida judiciary and its financial reporting requirements.
the proceeding." This modification will bring this section into conformity with the language of section (6) of Canon 3B.
Finally, we emphasize that the Standards of Conduct and Technology Governing Electronic Media and Still Photography Coverage of Judicial Proceedings, Canon 3A(7) and Commentary, are not repealed, but have been moved to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. See Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.170.
Accordingly, the appended new Code of Judicial Conduct is hereby adopted in place of the present Code of Judicial Conduct, and the new Code shall govern the conduct of all justices and judges, and persons seeking those positions, effective January 1, 1995.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
Table of Contents
Prea...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger, Dr. Judith Schaechter, Dr. Tommy Schechtman, Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, Fla. Chapter, Am. Acad. of Family Physicians, Fla. Chapter, Am. Coll. of Physicians, Fla. Chapter, Inc. v. Governor of State
...Supreme Court interpreted the term “should” as hortatory in reviewing Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct. See In re Code of Judicial Conduct, 643 So.2d 1037, 1041 (Fla.1994). Such interpretation is irrelevant to determining what effect the Florida legislature intended to give language in th......
-
Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Fla.
...Supreme Court interpreted the term "should" as hortatory in reviewing Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct. See In re Code of Judicial Conduct, 643 So.2d 1037, 1041 (Fla.1994). Such interpretation is irrelevant to determining what effect the Florida legislature intended to give language in th......
-
Zeller v. The Florida Bar
...Association's Model Code, and better reflected "present day concerns and responsibilities of Florida judges." In re Code of Judicial Conduct, 643 So.2d 1037, 1038 (Fla.1994). The new Judicial Code had an effective date of January 1, 1995. Id. at The new Judicial Code adopted by the Supreme ......
-
Inquiry Concerning Ward, In re, 93-146
...request for information" under the commentary to Canon 2(B) of the recently revised Code of Judicial Conduct. In re Code of Judicial Conduct, 643 So.2d 1037, 1044 (Fla.1994). We also recognize the confusion that existed in this area prior to the 1994 revision of the Code of Judicial Conduct......
-
What every lawyer should know about the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct; "but I'm a friend of the court" and other predicaments.
...for a lawyer seeking to attain the highest standards of professionalism in a Florida law practice. (1) See In re Code of Jud. Conduct, 643 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1994) (enacting the code); In re Code of Jud. Conduct, 656 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1995); In re Code of Jud. Conduct, 659 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 19......
-
Judicial elections: Canon 7, politics, and free speech.
...[3] In re Code of Judicial Conduct (Canons 1, 2, and 7A(1)(b)), 603 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 1992). [4] In re Code of Judicial Conduct, 643 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1994), amended 659 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1995) and 675 So. 2d 111 (Fla. [5] ACLU 744 F. Supp. at 1097. [6] Id. at 1099. [7] ACLU v. The Flori......