Case Title: Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 02-337 Re: Ana Marie Pando

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC04-1636

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida 
 
 
 
 
 
____________ 
 
 
No. SC04-1636 
 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE,  
RE:  ANA MARIE PANDO. 
 
[May 12, 2005] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We review the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission 
("JQC") that Judge Ana Marie Pando receive the sanction of public reprimand and a 
$25,000 fine for her judicial misconduct.1  We approve the JQC's recommendation. 
                                                 
l.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, ' 12, Fla. Const.   
The JQC filed charges against Judge Pando, alleging that during the course of 
her unsuccessful 1998 election campaign and her successful 2000 election campaign 
Judge Pando (1) accepted loans from family members in excess of the $500 statutory 
limit; (2) misrepresented the source of these loans in submitting and certifying her 
campaign finance reports during the course of the campaigns; and (3) made misleading 
 
 
 
2 
 
statements regarding the source of a $25,000 loan in her deposition by special counsel 
for the JQC.  On August 23, 2004, the JQC filed a notice of formal proceedings 
against Judge Pando charging her with violating chapter 106, Florida Statutes (1997 & 
Supp. 1998), and chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2000), and canons 1, 2, and 7 of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct.  The JQC's notice of formal charges set forth in pertinent 
part the following: 
1. In violation of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes and Canon 7 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, during the 1998 campaign, you 
knowingly and recklessly accepted a $25,000 personal loan from a family 
member (your mother) made for the purpose of influencing the results of 
an election in excess of the $500 limit on contributions proscribed by 
law.  Further, you misrepresented the source of this loan in an attempt to 
avoid the $500 contribution limit. 
2. In violation of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes and Canon 7 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, during or after each campaign, you 
knowingly and recklessly violated the reporting provisions of Chapter 
106, Florida Statutes, by certifying the correctness of the campaign loan 
reports for each campaign year, when you knew that such reports were 
incorrect, false, or incomplete because they failed to disclose that Millie 
Bencomo (your mother), Esteban Bencomo (your stepfather), and/or 
their respective businesses were a source of numerous loans in excess of 
the $500 limit. 
3. In violation of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes and Canon 7 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, during the campaigns, you 
misrepresented the source of certain of your contributions in your 
campaign finance reports. 
4. In violation of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes and Canons 
1, 2, and 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, during the course of your 
deposition on July 2, 2003, you made statements tending to mislead the 
Commission as to a purported loan that you received from Eastern 
National Bank. 
These acts, if they occurred as alleged, would impair the 
 
 
 
3 
 
confidence of the citizens of this state in the integrity of the judicial 
system and in you as a judge; would constitute a violation of the cited 
Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct; would constitute conduct 
unbecoming a member of the judiciary; would demonstrate your 
unfitness to hold the office of judge; and would warrant discipline, 
including, but not limited to, your removal from office and/or any lawyer 
discipline that the Commission recommends. 
 
The JQC and Judge Pando presented a stipulation to this Court pursuant to article V, 
section 12, Florida Constitution, and Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rule 
6(j).  In that stipulation, Judge Pando admitted the following conduct and the 
impropriety of that conduct: 
a. During the 1998 campaign, in violation of Chapter 106 of the 
Florida Statutes and Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, she 
knowingly or recklessly accepted a $25,000 personal loan from a family 
member (her mother) made for the purpose of influencing the results of 
an election in excess of the $500 limit on contributions proscribed by 
law.  Further, she misrepresented the source of this loan in an attempt to 
avoid the $500 contribution limit. 
b. In violation of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes and Canon 7 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, during or after each campaign, she 
knowingly or recklessly violated the reporting provisions of Chapter 106, 
Florida Statutes, by certifying the correctness of the campaign loan 
reports for each campaign year, when she knew that such reports were 
incorrect, false, or incomplete because they failed to disclose that Millie 
Bencomo (her mother), Esteban Bencomo (her stepfather), and/or their 
respective businesses were a source of numerous loans in excess of the 
$500 limit. 
c. In violation of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes and Canon 7 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, during the campaigns, she inaccurately 
reported the source of certain of her contributions in her campaign 
finance reports. 
d. In violation of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes and Canons 
1, 2, and 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, during the course of her 
 
 
 
4 
 
deposition by special counsel on July 2, 2003, she made statements 
tending to mislead the JQC as to a purported loan that she received from 
Eastern National Bank. 
 
The JQC recommended a public reprimand of Judge Pando as well as payment of a 
$25,000 fine.  As explained below, based on the stipulated facts, the JQC's 
recommendation is approved. 
This Court reviews the findings of the JQC to determine if they are supported 
by clear and convincing evidence and reviews the recommendation of discipline to 
determine whether it should be approved.  "While this Court gives the findings and 
recommendations of the JQC great weight, 'the ultimate power and responsibility in 
making a determination rests with this Court.’”  In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77, 85 (Fla.) 
(footnote omitted) (quoting In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)), cert. 
denied, 540 U.S. 825 (2003).  Accordingly, we review the findings to ensure that there 
is "clear and convincing evidence" to support the alleged ethical violations––a standard 
of proof which has been described as "more than a 'preponderance of the evidence,' 
but the proof need not be 'beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.’”  Id. 
(quoting In re Davey, 645 So. 2d at 404).  A review of the stipulation entered into by 
Judge Pando and the JQC, as well as the JQC's findings, demonstrates by clear and 
convincing evidence that Judge Pando's conduct violated chapter 106 of the Florida 
Statutes and canons 1, 2, and 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Judge Pando 
 
 
 
5 
 
admitted the conduct alleged and the impropriety of that conduct in the stipulation 
presented by the parties. 
Having found that the findings of the JQC are supported by clear and 
convincing evidence, we now address the recommendation of discipline.  In an 
analogous case, In re Rodriguez, 829 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2002), this Court accepted the 
JQC's recommendation of a public reprimand and $40,000 fine for campaign finance 
conduct violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Judge Rodriguez was found to 
have violated canons 1, 2, 5D, 6B, and 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as 
section 106.075, Florida Statutes (1997).  In other cases this Court has accepted the 
JQC’s recommendation of a public reprimand for campaign violations.  See In re 
Alley, 699 So. 2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 1997) (approving public reprimand for judicial 
election campaign violations); In re Glickstein, 620 So. 2d 1000, 1002-03 (Fla. 1993) 
(approving public reprimand for violation of canons 1, 2, and 7).
We accept the JQC's recommendation of a public reprimand and fine for Judge 
Pando.  Such disciplinary action is consistent with governing precedent with regard to 
the appropriate sanction for this type of judicial misconduct. 
We order that Judge Pando pay a fine of $25,000.  We also command Judge 
Ana Maria Pando to appear before this Court for the administration of a public 
reprimand at a time to be set by the clerk of this Court.  See In re Frank, 753 So. 2d 
 
 
 
6 
 
1228, 1242 (Fla. 2000). 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
LEWIS, J., concurs specially with an opinion. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF 
FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
 
LEWIS, J., specially concurring. 
 
 
While I recognize the authority of both In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2003), 
and the decision, in which I did not participate, in In re Rodriguez, 829 So. 2d 857 
(Fla. 2002), I continue to hold the view that if conduct is so egregious as to require 
enormous monetary fines, the judicial office itself has been soiled and damaged.  If we 
continue down this path, in my view, we undermine trust and confidence in the 
judicial system.  Here, Judge Pando certainly did not engage in the type of conduct 
condemned in Kinsey; however, I continue to believe as I voiced in Kinsey: 
 
In my view, the imposition of this fine, the amount of which is 
clearly designed and intended to represent the enormity of the 
reprehensible behavior, sends the message to future candidates that they 
may violate the Code and commit ethical breaches, if they are prepared 
to pay a monetary fine following the election.  The kind of promises and 
type of condemnable campaign behavior demonstrated here tarnishes the 
very purpose for which the judiciary was established--to fairly and 
impartially consider any and all matters, without preconceived notions or 
positions about the merits of each case. . . . I conclude that if the actions 
 
 
 
7 
 
are so reprehensible that the majority believes the imposition of a 
$50,000 fine is justified, those actions must certainly justify removal 
from the office so tainted.  Selecting an enormous fine as discipline only 
sends the message that "anything goes" in judicial elections if a candidate 
has the financial ability to pay the monetary consequences.  Indeed, in 
this era in which many judicial candidates in Florida are able to produce 
significant campaign funds from donations or personal assets, there may 
come a day when candidates simply maintain monetary reserves to pay 
fines following the election and then only the economically powerful can 
successfully compete in the election process. 
Kinsey, 842 So. 2d at 99. 
 
 
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission 
 
Richard C. McFarlain, Chairman, Tallahassee, Florida; Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., 
General Counsel, Tampa, Florida; Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director, 
Tallahassee, Florida; Marvin E. Barkin, John E. Johnson, and Amy L. Drushal of 
Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill and Mullis, P.A., Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
Jose M. Herrera, Coral Gables, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge Ana Marie Pando