Category Archives: Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission

Florida judge suspended for six months for judicial campaign violations and Bar Rule violations while he was a practicing lawyer

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent opinion of the Florida Supreme Court reprimanding and suspending a judge for six (6) months for violating the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons related to judicial candidates and the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar while he was a practicing lawyer for, inter alia, making improper and false statements as a candidate, and failing to withdraw from a lawsuit where he had a conflict of interest.  The case is Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 13-25 Re: Andrew J. Decker, III, No. SC14-383 (March 2, 2017) and the Court’s opinion is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2014/383/2014-383_disposition_138059.pdf

The investigation into the alleged misconduct began before the judge was elected as a Third Judicial Circuit judge in 2012.  The judge was alleged to have had a conflict of interest while he was representing clients as a lawyer and of, among other things, falsely stating that he had never been accused of conflict of interest and stating that he was “pro-life” and Republican at campaign events before his election in 2012.  The judge maintained that his comments regarding his party and his views regarding abortion were “political speech” protected by the First Amendment.

The judge was also named in an inquiry by a Florida House committee regarding the time it takes to investigate and resolve allegations against judges.  Former Duval Circuit Judge Mark Hulsey was also named; however, he resigned the day before the committee began the inquiry.

In March 2015, after an investigation, the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) recommended a 90-day suspension without pay; however, the opinion rejected that recommendation and imposed a six (6) month suspension, reprimand, and required payment of the JQC’s costs.

According to the opinion:  “All the violations established in this case demonstrate a pattern of poor judgment, and lack of concern for jointly represented clients and for other counsel and their clients.”  “Judge Decker’s misconduct unquestionably warrants the imposition of a serious sanction.”  The opinion also indicated that the judge’s misconduct did not result in any harm to his clients or anyone else and: “Although the series of acts by Judge Decker involving misconduct requires the imposition of a serious sanction, we have concluded it does not merit removal from office.”

Bottom line:  This case is interesting since all judicial candidates and judges are subject to investigation by the JQC  for alleged violations of the Judicial Canons for alleged misconduct while they are candidates or while they are on the bench.  They also can (and have been) prosecuted by The Florida Bar for misconduct before they are sworn in as a judge.  In this case, the Court suspended the judge for conduct both as a practicing lawyer and as a judicial candidate; however, The Florida Bar will have jurisdiction to prosecute the judge for Florida Bar Rule violations after he is no longer a judge.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida Judge candidate misconduct, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judicial candidate misconduct, Judicial ethics

Florida Twelfth Circuit Judge charged with misconduct for allegedly accepting Tampa Bay Rays tickets from firm with case pending before him

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the February 1, 2016 Notice of Formal Charges filed by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) against Florida Twelfth Circuit Judge John Lakin for allegedly requesting and accepting Tampa Bay Rays tickets from a law firm which had a case pending before him.  The JQC charges are here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2016/182/2016-182_notice_77834.pdf

According to the JQC Notice of Formal Charges and charges, in June 2015, the judge was presiding over the personal injury case of Wittke v. Walmart June, wherein the plaintiff accused Walmart of negligence, which caused her to fall and injure herself.  After a trial, Walmart was found by the jury not to be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.  The day after the verdict was rendered, the judge asked his judicial assistant to contact the law firm which defended the plaintiff to request tickets for that night’s game between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Boston Red Sox.

The judge received five tickets valued at about $100 each, and he indicated that he only used two of the tickets.  The judge was from the Boston area.  According to the JQC Notice:  “The tickets you received were excellent seats, being located seven to eight rows back, between home plate and first base”.

According to the JQC Notice, the plaintiff’s law firm filed a motion 6 days later to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.  The motion was heard on August 21, 2015; however, the judge did not rule at that time.  On August 25, 2015, the judge requested and received five more tickets to a Tampa Bay Rays game from the law firm and, on August 26, 2015, the judge issued an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial.  The Order stated that  “(n)o reasonable jury could have returned a verdict finding that the Defendant was not at least partially liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff based on the evidence presented at trial.”   The Notice further states:  “(y)our extraordinary action allowed the Plaintiff a second opportunity to seek damages from Walmart. You have acknowledged that during your tenure on the bench you have never before overturned a jury verdict.”

According to the JQC Notice, the Chief Circuit Judge for the 12th Judicial District told the judge his conduct was inappropriate and told him to report it to the JQC.  The judge then disclosed that he had received tickets from the firm both to the JQC and to Walmart attorneys; however, according to the Notice, “(y)our subsequent disclosure to the parties on October 9, 2015, stated only that, ‘I previously received Tampa Bay Rays baseball tickets from the…law firm.’  Your disclosure did not include the dates that you accepted the tickets, nor did you even explain that you had accepted the tickets while the Wittke matter was pending.”  The JQC Notice also states that the judge received baseball tickets from two other law firms which have appeared before him.

The JQC rules prohibit judges from conducting activities outside of the courtroom which cast a reasonable doubt on his or her ability to be impartial, undermine the judge’s independence, or demean the judicial office and from “accepting gifts, favors, bequests or loans from lawyers or their firms if they have come or are likely to come before the judge.”

The JQC rules provide that the judge may file an answer to the Notice and charges within 20 days. The JQC will hold hearings and make a recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court, which will issue a formal order/opinion and impose discipline if the judge is found guilty.

Bottom line: This is a somewhat extraordinary and surprising case.  Perhaps the judge was unaware of the rules prohibiting accepting gifts from lawyers, specifically when the case is pending before him; however, under the most unfavorable argument, the judge could be alleged to have accepted the gift and issued favorable ruling as a direct result of the law firm’s gift.  Both lawyers and judges must be very aware of these clear prohibitions and also that the consequences of a violation of the rules, whether intentional or unintentional, will most likely be very severe.

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge ethics accepting gifts, Judicial ethics, Judicial ethics accepting gifts from lawyers with pending cases

Florida Supreme Court issues order to show cause and immediately suspends judge who cursed at and fought with public defender

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the October 6, 2015 Florida Supreme Court order which rejected the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) recommendation of a 120 day suspension for a judge who cursed at and fought with a public defender and ordered the judge to “show cause why removal from office is not the appropriate sanction in this case” by October 26, 2015.  The order also immediately suspended the judge without pay pending the disposition of the proceedings.  The JQC disciplinary case is Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Re: John C Murphy, Case No. SC-1582 (Fla. SC).  The Court’s October 6, 2015 order to show cause is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/14/14-1582/Filed_10-06-2015_Order_to_Show_Cause.pdf#search=John C. Murphy

The judicial disciplinary charges resulted from a June 2, 2014 hearing in which the judge became upset with assistant public defender Andrew Weinstock after the lawyer refused to waive speedy trial for a client.  The judge told the lawyer: “You know if I had a rock, I would throw it at you right now. Stop pissing me off. Just sit down. I’ll take care of this. I don’t need your help. Sit down.”  The lawyer stated, in response: “I’m the public defender. I have a right to be here, and I have a right to stand and represent my clients.”

According to the JQC’s May 19, 2015 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations, the judge “loudly commanded” the attorney to sit down and told him, “If you want to fight, let’s go out back and I’ll just beat your ass.”  The public defender accepted the judge’s challenge and he and the judge left the bench and met in the hall.  To that point, the exchange was captured on courtroom video and audio recordings; however, the hall confrontation was not recorded on video.

The judge was audio recorded making “an even more profane remark” as he confronted the lawyer.  Sounds of an altercation could be heard, followed by the lawyer asking for the judge to be arrested for grabbing and punching him; however, the report concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the judge struck the lawyer and noted that a woman who took the lawyer’s photo the following day testified that she saw no evidence of injury.  The report also noted that the lawyer had a reputation at the courthouse for being rude and unprofessional and that he was “defiant, defensive, evasive and at times testified inconsistent with what he had earlier reported” at the JQC hearing.  The report concluded that the lawyer was not a credible witness.

The JQC Findings state that the judge was well-liked among other judges and that he was endorsed by lawyers who said he was a good judge and expressed surprise at the situation. The judge also took responsibility for his actions and “expressed profound remorse”; however, the incident created “a remarkable national embarrassment” for Florida’s judiciary and its citizens.  The report recommended a three-month suspension, a $50,000 fine, costs of the proceedings, and a public reprimand.  The JQC Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations are online here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/14/14-1582/Filed_05-19-2015_Findings_Conclusions_Recommendations.pdf

After the commission filed its Findings, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause on May 21, 2015 as to why the recommendation should not be granted.  On June 25, 2015, the judge filed a response through counsel stating that he would not contest the recommendations; however, he called the sanctions harsh and possibly unprecedented and pointed out the burden his suspension would place on his colleagues.  The response stated that the judge immediately took responsibility for his actions, apologized for his mistake, and did not publicly respond to the lawyer’s allegedly false claims that he struck the lawyer.  The response referred to letters from lawyers and the public stating that he is “a good man and an excellent judge,” as opposed to the lawyer, who “left a trail of judges offended by his behavior.”

The judge’s response further states: “The sanctions recommended by the JQC indeed are harsh. Judge Murphy accepts them while recognizing how difficult it would be emotionally — being off the bench for four months — and financially. As for public scrutiny and ridicule, he knows it is of his own making, and he is shamed. Judge Murphy will not quarrel with the JQC recommendations.  Dozens of endorsements through this process identify Judge Murphy as a good man and a good and fair jurist. This one moment in time should not be allowed to define his life and career.”  The judge’s response is here:   http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/14/14-1582/Filed_06-25-2015_Response_Order_Show_Cause.pdf#search=John C. Murphy

The JQC filed a reply on June 30, 2015 which states: “again, as he did at trial, (the judge) expends quite a bit of effort to deflect responsibility for the situation upon attorney Andrew Weinstock, minimizing the impact of his improper language and the aggressive physical confrontation in the hallway outside the courtroom directed at Mr. Weinstock. Compounding his misconduct he proceeded to handle the cases of seven separate clients of Mr. Weinstock after the confrontation in the hallway, including persuading five of them to waive speedy trial, the very act that Mr. Weinstock had steadfastly refused to do. Finally, he makes much of the fact that the Hearing Panel did not find that blows were actually struck, which is irrelevant under these circumstances.”

The JQC reply concludes: “A truly contrite Judge Murphy would avoid heaping blame on others, would accept without reservation the discipline proposed by the hearing panel in this matter, and would be grateful that removal was not recommended”.  “Instead, what we see is a grudging acceptance and a continued, major effort to deflect his own responsibility onto someone else for his egregious wrong.” The JQC reply is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/14/14-1582/Filed_06-30-2015_JQC_Reply_Response_Show_Cause_Order.pdf#search=John C. Murphy

Bottom line: This incident was, of course, widely publicized in the media and the judge was both criticized and ridiculed (as well as the judiciary as a whole).  The JQC Findings recommended a 4 month suspension; however, the JQC reply was extremely critical of the judge’s response and stated that it was part of “ a continued, major effort to deflect his own responsibility onto someone else for his egregious wrong.”  I suspect that the Supreme Court was not happy with this incident in the first instance and this “deflection of responsibility” may have been a major factor (if not the main factor) in the Court’s order immediately suspending the judge and ordering him to show cause why he should not be removed from judicial office.  Stay tuned…

…and be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge misconduct cursing and fight with lawyer, Judicial ethics

Florida Bar referee recommends 1-year suspension for former state prosecutor who sent hundreds of texts and made calls to the presiding judge during murder trial

Florida Bar referee recommends 1-year suspension for former state prosecutor who sent hundreds of texts and made calls to the presiding judge during murder trial.

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Judicial ethics, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

Florida Bar referee recommends 1-year suspension for former state prosecutor who sent hundreds of texts and made calls to the presiding judge during murder trial

Hello and welcome to this JACPA Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent media reports that a Florida Bar referee has recommended that a former Florida criminal prosecutor who sent hundreds of texts and made calls to a presiding judge during a capital murder trial should be found guilty and suspended from practice for one year.

According to the media reports, Fifteenth Circuit Court Judge Sheree Davis Cunningham, who was appointed by the Florida Supreme Court as a referee, found that former homicide prosecutor, Howard Scheinberg, sent the texts and made the telephone calls to the judge during the 2007 murder trial, that the communications should have been disclosed to defense counsel for the defendant, and that the lawyer’s failure to disclose them was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The lawyer is now in private practice in Plantation after serving for two decades as a state prosecutor.  He resigned after the communications between him and former Seventeenth Circuit Court (Broward County) Judge, Ana Gardiner, were revealed.  According to the Sun Sentinel, both the lawyer and the former judge have maintained that the approximately 1,400 texts and calls that they made to each other during the trial had nothing to do with the case.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to death after the initial trial; however, after the communications were revealed, he was granted a new trial.  He was convicted in the subsequent trial and sentenced to life in prison.

The report of referee is not final and will be sent to the Florida Supreme Court for review along with the record.  Both the lawyer and The Florida Bar have the right to file a Petition for Review of the referee’s findings and recommendations with the Court.

Judge Gardiner resigned from the bench after the communications were revealed and is now in private practice in Broward County.  She avoided a Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) ethics complaint by resigning as a judge; however, she is currently facing a Bar complaint alleging that the communications violated Florida Bar Rules and also that she misled the JQC by claiming that her communications with the prosecutor were less extensive than they actually were.  Also according to the media reports, a hearing on that matter is scheduled for May 2012.

Bottom line:  If true, these allegations are troubling on multiple levels and it also illustrates that a judge will not necessarily be able to escape charges of Bar disciplinary rule violations by resigning from the bench.

Be careful out there!

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. CORSMEIER, P.A.

PROVIDES ETHICS ADVICE AND EXPERT OPINIONS TO LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS

DEFENDS LAWYERS IN BAR MISSION AND DISCIPLINE CASES

(AND MUCH MORE!)

My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, defense of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms.  If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license.

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me at jcorsmeier@jac-law.com.  You can find my law firm on the web at www.jac-law.com. In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida.  I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules.  If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited.  Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Judicial ethics, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

Indiana Bar Ethics Opinion warns that lawyer participation in group coupon programs as a marketing tool may be unethical

Hello and welcome to this JACPA Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Indiana State Bar Association Ethics Opinion which states that a lawyers’ use of group coupon or daily deal programs to obtain new clients is “fraught with peril” and most likely violates Indiana Bar Rules.  The opinion is Indiana State Bar Association Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 1, 2012-JDH-1.  A copy of the opinion is attached.

The opinion addresses lawyers’ participation in the escalating industry of marketing through group coupon or daily deal arrangements (such as Groupon) and notes that in these arrangements the group coupon company and the participating business establish a discounted price for the item or service to be sold and then share that price.  The company charges the customers for the coupon only after a certain number of people respond to the offer and also, some customers who purchase coupons do not redeem them within the time period stated in the offer.

Indiana Bar Rule 2.1 requires a lawyer to exercise independent professional judgment in representing a client and the opinion notes that this standard is difficult (if not impossible) to meet if the representation of a client is determined by the potential client’s decision to purchase a coupon without any consultation.

The opinion also notes that Indiana’s guidelines on use of non-lawyer assistants provide that the creation of an attorney-client relationship is the nontransferable duty of the lawyer and a lawyer may not delegate to a non-lawyer assistant the responsibility for establishing an attorney-client relationship, which would occur of the company offers the coupons.

Indiana Bar Rule 5.4 also prohibits fee-sharing with non-lawyers in most circumstances, and Comment (4) to Indiana Bar Rule 7.2 states that lawyers are not permitted to pay others “for channeling professional work” (i.e. referrals).  By creating buying groups, the companies offering group coupon arrangements “are being paid to channel buyers of legal work to the specific lawyer, in violation of the advertising and fee-sharing rules.”

In addition, under Indiana Bar Rule 1.7, a lawyer is required to insure there are no conflicts of interest or any conflicts are resolved before undertaking the representation and, if any conflicts are not resolved before the representation begins, the lawyer is required to terminate the representation and return any fees paid.

According to the opinion, the coupon users might qualify as prospective clients under Indiana Bar Rule 1.18 if they deposit money with a group coupon company for the purpose of forming an attorney-client relationship and, if that occurred, lawyers would be required to meet the rule’s obligations regarding confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest.

The opinion found it “troubling” that group coupon companies hold funds paid by clients until the funds are disbursed to the lawyer and that some companies pay out the funds over time in incremental amounts.  This arrangement would violate Indiana Bar Rule 1.15(c), which requires that advance fees must be held in trust and withdrawn only when earned.  In addition, the client’s funds are most likely not segregated and complete trust records are not maintained as required by Indiana Bar Rule 1.15(a). The provision in some of the group coupon contracts that the funds remain the property of the company also violates Indiana Bar Rule 1.15.

The opinion also expressed concern that if consumers who purchase coupons are not ultimately represented by the lawyer, the participating lawyer would not be able to comply with Indiana Bar Rule 1.16(a), which requires a lawyer to refund any advance fees which have not been earned.  In addition,  the lawyer would not be able to timely identify each individual who bought a coupon but did not become clients and refund the entire amount paid to the client, including the company’s share, which is required by the Indiana Bar Rules.

Although Indiana Bar Rule 7.2(b)(1) allows a lawyer to pay the reasonable costs of advertisements, the group coupons used by some companies violate that rule since the company keeps as much as 50% of the amount collected, instead of allocating an amount related to the reasonable costs of the advertising.

The opinion suggests that online coupon advertising arrangements may be permissible under certain limited circumstances, for example, if the lawyer offers a coupon for legal services at a specified rate, with the client to pay the lawyer directly.  If the client paid a nominal fee for this coupon related to the reasonable costs of the marketing, this arrangement would not violate the Indiana Bar Rules.

According to the opinion, a few states have examined this issue and “(t)he reports are that they have considered different aspects of the program as important and have disagreed as to the propriety of such programs.”  The opinion refers to ethics opinions from Missouri, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

The opinion concluded that “it is likely not appropriate for a lawyer licensed in Indiana to advertise through a group coupon program” similar to those discussed in the opinion and lawyers considering such an arrangement should do “rigorous research before entering into such an arrangement” and may even want to hire private counsel to “guide the lawyer through the dangers inherent in such marketing, including discussion of alternative courses of action that may comply with the rules.”

Bottom line: The Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee has not issued an ethics opinion on this issue; however, this Indiana ethics opinion makes it very clear that, at least in Indiana, lawyers must be aware that unless the group coupon program avoids the minefields set out in the opinion, a lawyer who participates would potentially violate the Indiana Bar Rules and be subject to disciplinary consequences.

Be careful out there!

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. CORSMEIER, P.A.

PROVIDES ETHICS ADVICE AND EXPERT OPINIONS TO LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS

DEFENDS LAWYERS IN BAR MISSION AND DISCIPLINE CASES

(AND MUCH MORE!)

My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, defense of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms.  If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license.

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me at jcorsmeier@jac-law.com.  You can find my law firm on the web at www.jac-law.com. In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida.  I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules.  If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited.  Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida lawyer trust accounts, joe corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer escrow accounts, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sharing fees with non-lawyers

Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission alleges that Florida County Judge improperly used judicial stationary to lend prestige for private interest and received improper contributions

Hello and welcome to this JACPA Ethics Alert blog which discusses the Miami-Dade County Judge who was recently charged by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission for using her judicial stationary to lend the prestige of her judicial office for a private interest and accepted improper campaign contributions.

The Notice of Formal Charges was filed on March 19, 2012 and states that a JQC panel found probable cause that a Miami-Dade County Judge violated Florida Judicial Canons when she sent correspondence on her judicial stationary to the Florida Division of Corporations which stated that a company called Florida Wellness & Rehabilitation Center had been inadvertently closed and should be reinstated, and attached a supporting affidavit.  According to the Notice, the October 14, 2011 correspondence was sent on behalf of the company’s president, Mark Cereceda, who was a friend of the judge.

The Notice also alleges that the Division of Corporations considered the correspondence to be an Order and reinstated the corporation without a fee.  According to the Notice, there was no legitimate judicial reason to send the correspondence and the judge’s use of judicial stationary constituted the “lending of prestige of judicial office to a private interest” as well as the practice of law, both of which are prohibited under the Code of Judicial Conduct.  In addition, the Notice alleges that the judge had cases before her involving corporate entities associated with Mr. Cereceda when the correspondence was sent and that she received four campaign contributions for her re-election in the amount $500.00 from entities controlled by Mr. Cereceda.

The Notice also states that the Florida Supreme Court sanctioned the judge in 2005 with a public reprimand and a $25,000.00 fine for accepting illegal campaign contributions during her unsuccessful 1998 election campaign as well as her successful 2000 election.  Under the JQC’s disciplinary procedures, the Notice constitutes formal charges against the judge, who may file a written answer within 20 days.  If the judge is found guilty of the charges, she would be subject to removal from office “and/or any other appropriate discipline recommended by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission.”

Bottom line:  Although this Notice of Formal Charges does not constitute final findings of fact, guilt, and/or discipline, it again raises issues related to the election of judges who must solicit and rely upon contributions during their election campaigns.  Unlike Florida Bar disciplinary matters, JQC proceedings are confidential and do not become public unless probable cause is found, which occurred here.

Be careful out there!

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. CORSMEIER, P.A.

PROVIDES ETHICS ADVICE AND EXPERT OPINIONS TO LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS

DEFENDS LAWYERS IN BAR MISSION AND DISCIPLINE CASES

(AND MUCH MORE!)

My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, defense of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms.  If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license.

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me at jcorsmeier@jac-law.com.  You can find my law firm on the web at www.jac-law.com. In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida.  I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules.  If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited.  Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Judicial ethics, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism