Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida
If you should have the need to report the judicial misconduct of a Florida judge or the misconduct of a judicial officer that may not be a judge, the Code of Judicial Conduct would apply. Such complaints are filed with the Judicial Qualifications Commission in Tallahassee, Florida, at the address below. If the offensive conduct is of a criminal nature, you must file a complaint with the State Attorney’s Office in the county wherein the criminal conduct was engaged.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission does not provide a complaint form. Instead, the JQC requires your complaint to be in writing in the form of a letter. The Commission will only address the issues relating to the Code of Judicial Conduct and cannot intervene in your court case or change the outcome of your court case.
All judges and judicial officers have taken an oath of office to “support and defend” state and federal constitutions. Specifically, a judge must not deny anyone of their rights to due process of law, access to the courts, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and many other rights set out in our state and federal constitutions. Other government authorities may deprive you of your rights, rightly or wrongly, but only a judge can deny you of your rights. The JQC will consider such violations if addressed in your complaint.
When writing your complaint letter be sure to include the following information: your name, address and telephone number; the date you observed or learned of the misconduct; the case number and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any witnesses, including the lawyers. It is suggested that you review the various Canons so you will better understand a judicial officer’s duties and responsibilities in this regard.
Make your complaint no greater in length than is reasonably necessary to describe the judicial misconduct. Be sure to attach any relevant documentation, such as court transcripts with highlighted areas and other documents, to illustrate the wrongdoing you observed or of which you have knowledge. Do not attach original documents, but only submit copies of them. It is highly suggested that you make yourself a copy of your complaint before mailing and send your complaint by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.
If you need to file a complaint against a Florida lawyer click HERE.
- Applicability of the Rules
- Preamble
- Definitions
- Canon 1 – A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
- Canon 2 – A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge’s Activities
- Canon 3 – A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently
- Canon 4 – A Judge May Engage in Activities to Improve the Law, the Legal System and the Administration of Justice
- Canon 5 – A Judge Shall Regulate Extrajudicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of Conflict With Judicial Duties
- Canon 6 – Fiscal Matters of a Judge Shall be Conducted in a Manner that does not Give the Appearance of Influence or Impropriety; etc.
- Canon 7 – A Judge or Candidate for Judicial Office Shall Refrain from Inappropriate Political Activity
Mail your judicial complaint to:
Attention: Ms. Brooke Kennerly
Executive Director
Judicial Qualifications Commission
Room 102, Historic Capitol Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399-6000
850-488-1581
Any persons having knowledge bearing upon the fitness or qualifications of any of the senior judges on this list to continue service as a senior judge should send, on or before April 15, written comments to Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Florida Supreme Court, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee 32399, or by e-mail at seniorjudge@flcourts.org, or by telephone to the chair of the appropriate review board as noted.
Florida Supreme Court Justices (Chief Justice Charles T. Canady, chair, (850) 410-8092): James E. Alderman and Ben F. Overton.
Review Board One (Judge Robert T. Benton II, chair, (850) 487-1000): Frank L. Bell, A. Keith Brace, Frederic A. Buttner, Thomas R. Ellinor, Erwin Fleet, William L. Gary, Mattox S. Hair, James L. Harrison, John P. Kuder, Charles O. Mitchell, Jr., Bernard Nachman, John T. Parnham, Stewart E. Parsons, Elzie S. Sanders, Peter K. Sieg, L. Ralph Smith, Jr., A. C. Soud, Jr., John D. Southwood, Joseph Q. Tarbuck, Richard G. Weinberg and William A. Wilkes.
Review Board Two (Judge Darryl C. Casanueva, Chair, (813) 272-3430): Horace A. Andrews, Robert E. Beach, Charles Lee Brown, Charles T. Carlton, Wayne L. Cobb, Stephen L. Dakan, Nancy K. Donnellan, Donald C. Evans, Crockett Farnell, Judith J. Flanders, Barbara C. Fleischer, Marion L. Fleming, Thomas M. Gallen, Frank A. Gomez, Oliver L. Green, Karl B. Grube, Anne H. Kaylor, William C. McIver, Daniel R. Monaco, Cecelia M. Moore, J. Rogers Padgett, Donald E. Pellecchia, Harry M. Rapkin, Thomas S. Reese, E. J. Salcines, Jack R. Schoonover, Radford W. Smith, Hugh E. Starnes, Ralph Steinberg, James R. Thompson, Ray E. Ulmer, Jr., and David Seth Walker.
Review Board Three (Judge Juan Ramirez, Jr., chair, (305) 229-3200, ext. 3216): Philip Cook, Robert M. Deehl, Charles D. Edelstein, Eugene J. Fierro, Seymour Gelber, Marvin H. Gillman, William E. Gladstone, Leonard E. Glick, Jon I. Gordon, Edward S. Klein, Judith L. Kreeger, Thomas K. Petersen, Jeffrey Rosinek, Alan R. Schwartz, Martin Shapiro, Roger A. Silver, Stuart M. Simons, Raphael Steinhardt, Herbert Stettin, Sandra Taylor and David L. Tobin.
Review Board Four (Judge Frederick A. Hazouri, chair, (561) 242-2078): William A. Bollinger, Eli Breger, George A. Brescher, Richard B. Burk, Miette K. Burnstein, David C. Clark, Patricia W. Cocalis, Roger B. Colton, Richard Y. Feder, Robert J. Fogan, Barry E. Goldstein, Howard H. Harrison, Jr., Hubert R. Lindsey, Susan Lubitz, James W. Midelis, John A. Miller, Leroy H. Moe, Robert H. Newman, Jerry Pollock and George A. Shahood.
Review Board Five (Judge David A. Monaco, chair, (386) 947-1514): John W. Booth, Marc A. Cianca, Ted P. Coleman, Richard F. Conrad, Barbara Gurrola, H. Pope Hamrick, Jr., Charles M. Harris, Charles M. Holcomb, William C. Johnson, Jr., Lawrence R. Kirkwood, Jeffords D. Miller, Victor J. Musleh, Robert J. Pleus, Jr., Rom W. Powell, Charles N. Prather, Edwin P. B. Sanders, Janis Halker Simpson, George A. Sprinkel, IV, William T. Swigert and Richard O. Watson.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
__________________________________________/
IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
HERE IS THE ACTUAL LETTER TO THE JUDGE
March 29, 2011
Honorable Robert W. Hodges
110 N.W. First Ave.
Ocala, FL 34475
RE: SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. v. Hamilton;
Marion County Case No. 2010-4843-CA-N
Judge Hodges:
I received your Order Denying Motion to Disqualify. I am writing this letter because it seems, respectfully, that the point has been lost on you.
I litigate hundreds of foreclosure cases with various judges throughout Florida. With all due respect, I find the procedures you utilize, including the procedures in this case, to be out of bounds, to the point that I, respectfully, find them offensive. I re-read the Motion to Dismiss that I filed. Motions like this are routinely granted by judges throughout the state. Sure, they’re not granted every time, and I don’t expect to win every time. But you denied this motion without a hearing, without a chance to be heard, without any notice that you might rule without a hearing, and even though Plaintiff filed no paperwork in opposition to the motion whatsoever. When a motion that is routinely granted in other cases gets denied in this manner, I don’t think it unfair to me to wonder “what’s going on here?” I’m particularly troubled because the Plaintiff in this case has taken no action to advance this case to judgment.
I sincerely hope that you do not have occasion to be a defendant in a case such as a mortgage foreclosure case. If you do, then perhaps your perspective will change a bit. Perhaps then you will see that when a judge is taking it upon himself to prosecute a case and advance a case towards judgment – when the plaintiff is not prosecuting the case – that reasonable people can conclude the judge is not neutral and detached. This concern is particularly reasonable when the defendant seeks no relief whatsoever, as in that circumstance, it is clear that you are taking action that helps the plaintiff to the detriment of the defendant.
For comparison’s sake, I represent some small businesses against insurance companies (not foreclosure cases) on a regular basis. Do you think there has ever been an instance when a judge did something to accelerate the prosecution of one of those cases? Heck no. It’s my job, as Plaintiff’s lawyer, as the party seeking relief, to move the cases towards judgment. If I don’t do that, then the cases languish. As the plaintiff’s lawyer, I accept that’s how the system works.
The Defendant has no obligation to move towards judgment, and it certainly isn’t the judge’s role to do so. The suggestion that foreclosure cases should be treated differently is, in my view, insulting. Many of my foreclosure clients have legitimate defenses to foreclosure, to the extent that I’m confident I would win at trial if/when these cases go to trial. To accelerate these cases in the manner that you do, acting as if Defendants have no defenses, is, respectfully, inappropriate.
You have your own perspective on this, and I’m sure it’s different than mine. But that’s part of the point. With a motion to disqualify, you are required to view the perspective of a (reasonable) defendant. You are required to put yourself in my client’s shoes. Suppose this were you.
If you were the foreclosure defendant, would you find it fair that the judge was taking it upon himself to advance a case towards judgment, particularly where the plaintiff was the only party seeking relief?
If you were the foreclosure defendant, would you find it fair that the judge was denying a motion that was essentially unopposed, without notice or hearing, particularly when you know that similar motions are routinely granted in other cases?
Again, I realize that you have your own issues and agendas here. I’m sure, if you responded to this, that you’d say you have a job to do by clearing foreclosure cases or that such conduct is authorized by the Rules of Judicial Administration. However, I cannot help but think that if you really thought about this issue from the perspective of a defendant, you would realize the way you prosecute these cases and deny hearings is unfair and creates a strong perception of bias on your part. Perhaps that is not intended, but I assure you – from the defense side of the table, the perception of judicial bias is overwhelming.
I respectfully but strongly encourage you to think about what I have written in this letter. You may not agree, but I think you need to be aware of how your actions are perceived.
MOTION TO VACATE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TODISMISS AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE
2. On or about January 17, 2011, Defendants served their Motion to Dismiss Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”).
3. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss nor did Plaintiff make any attempt to set the Motion to Dismiss for hearing. Quite simply, for whatever reason, Plaintiff chose not to prosecute this lawsuit.
4. On February 14, 2011, the Judge issued an Order, out of the blue,
5. With all due respect, this Court’s procedure is way out of whack, unduly prejudicial, and shows the Judge to be hopelessly biased.
6. First off, the fact that the Judge has done anything at all
7. The Judge’s conduct in prosecuting this case is particularly disturbing because of the nature of the case. Plaintiff is the party seeking relief. Defendant is seeking no relief. Where the Judge is advancing a case towards judgment,
8. Compounding these concerns, the Judge did not even require that Plaintiff respond in any way to the Motion to Dismiss, therefore, the Motion to Dismiss was undisputed. For the Judge to rule against an undisputed Motion, without hearing and without Plaintiff being required to argue its position, shows the Judge’s bias and strips Defendants of their rights to due process.
9. Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to create rules of practice and procedure in all courts, a power expressly granted to it by Article V, Section II of the Florida Constitution. If the Florida Supreme Court’s wanted to require or allow rulings on motions to dismiss without a hearing, that would be the Court’s prerogative. The Court has not so acted, so this Court cannot, either, particularly in the absence of an Administrative Order.
WHEREFORE Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an Order disqualifying the Honorable Robert W. Hodges from presiding over this cause and vacating the February 14, 2011 Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
____________________________________
____________________________________
Angela M. Hamilton 4