Case Title: Inquiry Concerning a Judge Re: John T Luzzo

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC00-197

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-197
____________
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, No. 99-105, 
Re:  JOHN T. LUZZO,
[May 4, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a stipulation between the Florida
Judicial Qualifications Commission and John T. Luzzo, a Circuit Judge of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit.  In the stipulation, Judge Luzzo admits to judicial
misconduct and stipulates that he will not contest the recommendation of the
Commission that he be publicly reprimanded for such misconduct.  We have
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const.  We approve the stipulation and impose
the recommended sanction.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission charged Judge Luzzo with violating
1Canon 1 ("A judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary"), provides
that "[a] judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of
conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the
judiciary may be preserved."  Canon 2 ("A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of
Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities"), provides in part A that "A judge shall respect and
comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."  Part B of canon 2 provides that "[a] judge shall not allow
family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.
A judge shall not . . . permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge."  Canon 3E requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself "in a proceeding in
which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."  Finally, canon 5D(5) sets forth the
rule that "[a] judge shall not accept . . . a gift bequest, favor or loan," but section 5D(5)(h) provides
an exception in those circumstances where "the donor is not a party or other person who has come
or is likely to come or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge; and if its
value exceeds $100.00, the judge reports it in the same manner as the judge reports compensation
in Section 6B." 
-2-
Canons 1, 2A and B, 3E, and 5D(5)(h) of the Code of Judicial Conduct,1 for
accepting free tickets to Florida Marlins baseball games during 1994 through 1997
from a law firm whose lawyers appeared before him in at least two cases.  In its
entirety, the stipulation provides:
1.
Judge Luzzo admits the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice of Formal Charges with the
clarification that the subject baseball tickets were received from two
friends who were members of the law firm of Billing, Cochran, Lyles
and Mauro, P.A. ("the Law Firm"). 
2.
On approximately ten occasions in 1997, Judge Luzzo
accepted free tickets to the Florida Marlins' baseball games from those
two members of the Law Firm.  In the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, he
received free tickets to the Florida Marlins' baseball games from the
two members of the Law Firm on approximately five to seven different
occasions.  On the occasions in 1994, 1995 and 1996, when he
accepted free tickets, he usually accepted two tickets.  On one
occasion during that time, Judge Luzzo accepted four free baseball
tickets.  On all of these occasions, Judge Luzzo informed the two
-3-
members of the Law Firm that he would only accept the tickets if they
were otherwise to be unused. 
3.
The face value of the baseball tickets Judge Luzzo
accepted from 1994 through 1997 were $16.00 to $18.00 a piece. 
4.
Judge Luzzo waives his right to trial by the Hearing Panel
of the Commission, and will not submit any further evidence or file any
further pleadings in this matter. 
5.
Judge Luzzo has cooperated with the Investigative Panel
of the Commission.  He has also ceased accepting free tickets.  Further,
in order to avoid any possible embarrassment to the Florida Conference
of Circuit Judges or to the integrity of the judiciary, Judge Luzzo
resigned as Chairperson-Elect of the Conference prior to his being
installed at the June, 1999 meeting.
6.
The Investigative Panel has carefully and fully considered
this matter.  Judge Luzzo has never had a complaint filed against him
with The Florida Bar in over eight years as an attorney before he
became a judge, nor has there been a prior Judicial Qualifications
Commission inquiry regarding him in the eighteen plus years he has
served as a judge.  In fact, he has chaired and served on numerous
Florida Bar and Judicial Conference Committees in furthering the
practice and professionalism of the Bench and Bar.  Taking into
account Judge Luzzo's cooperation, his candor, his expressions of
remorse to the Investigative Panel, his general reputation as a fair,
impartial and competent judge who has repeatedly been highly rated in
the local Judicial Bar Polls, the fact that he resigned as the
Chairperson-Elect of the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, his
general reputation as a competent judge, and all of the circumstances
bearing on this matter, the Investigative Panel concludes that a public
reprimand is appropriate.  Judge Luzzo will not contest the
recommendation to be made by the Investigative Panel to the Supreme
Court of Florida that he be publicly reprimanded in the manner deemed
appropriate by the Supreme Court of Florida. 
According to the findings of the Commission, although the value of each
individual ticket or group of tickets Judge Luzzo received in 1997 was less than
-4-
$100, the aggregate value of all the tickets he received during that year equaled
between $160 and $180 dollars.  Canon 5D(5)(h) requires that judges report gifts
received in excess of $100; however, the Commission noted that the canon is
unclear as to whether the value of gifts received from one source in one year should
be aggregated.  Accordingly, the Commission did not consider the charge that Judge
Luzzo had violated canon 5D(5)(h) when he failed to report these gifts pursuant to
canon 6B(2), which governs the public reporting of gifts.  We likewise do not
consider this aspect of the charge and, as recommended by the Commission, we
refer the question of aggregation to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee to
determine whether these canons should be clarified.
Even without considering Judge Luzzo's failure to report these gifts, canon
5D(5)(h) also prohibits a judge from accepting a gift of any value from a "person
who has come or is likely to come" before the judge.  The commentary to canon
5D(5)(h) specifically provides that this canon "prohibits judges 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 importance of this Canon was emphasized in a
recent ethics advisory opinion.  See Fla. Supreme Ct. Judicial Ethics Adv. Comm.
Op. No. 2000-08, Judges and Court Employees Accepting Gifts from Lawyers,
Vendors, and Other Third Parties (March 1, 2000).  As found by the Judicial
-5-
Qualifications Commission, "During the period of time that Judge Luzzo received
these tickets, lawyers from the Law Firm were not only likely to appear before
Judge Luzzo, but actually were before him as defense counsel in at least two cases." 
Thus, Judge Luzzo's conduct comes squarely within Canon 5D(5)(h).  
In consideration of the foregoing stipulation and upon our independent review
of the stipulated circumstances that gave rise to the findings of judicial misconduct,
we find that Judge John T. Luzzo should be publicly reprimanded.  We recently
concluded that "when the conduct of a jurist is so egregious as to require a public
reprimand, such reprimand should be issued in person with the defaulting jurist
appearing before this Court."  In re Frank, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S147, S152 (Fla. Feb.
17, 2000).  Accordingly, we hereby command Judge John T. Luzzo to appear before
this Court for the administration of a public reprimand at 9 a.m. on June 6, 2000, for
the actions noted above.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding - Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission
-6-
Miette K. Burnstein, Chair, Tallahassee, Florida; Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., of
Cook, Bell & MacDonald, P.A., Tampa, Florida, General Counsel for the Florida
Judicial Qualifications Commission; and Eileen L. Tilghman of Shook, Hardy &
Bacon, L.L.P., Miami, Florida, Special Counsel for the Florida Judicial
Qualifications Commission,
Petitioner
Henry Latimer of Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, and Harris K. Solomon of Brinkley, McNerney, Morgan, Solomon &
Tatum, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Respondent