Case Title: Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 10-420 Re: William Singbush

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC11-905

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC11-905 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 10-420 RE:  
WILLIAM SINGBUSH. 
 
[June 7, 2012] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for review a stipulation between the Judicial Qualifications 
Commission (―JQC‖) and Judge William Singbush, as well as the JQC’s findings 
and recommendation that Judge Singbush be publicly reprimanded, submit to the 
JQC a signed letter of apology to the public, his fellow judges, and the legal 
community, and submit written weekly logs to special counsel of the JQC 
documenting timeliness at court proceedings, for violating the Code of Judicial 
Conduct.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const.  As explained in 
detail below, we accept the stipulation and approve the JQC’s findings and 
recommended sanction.   
 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
I.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS 
A.  Proceedings Before the JQC 
This action arose when, on May 9, 2011, the JQC served a Notice of Formal 
Charges on Judge William Singbush, Circuit Judge for Florida’s Fifth Judicial 
Circuit, pursuant to rule 6(f) of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission 
Rules.  The Notice of Formal Charges stated in pertinent part that the majority of 
members of the Investigative Panel of the JQC found probable cause existed to 
institute formal proceedings against Judge Singbush for violations of Canons 1,1 
2A,2 3B(4),3 3B(5),4 3B(7),5 and 3B(8)6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  
                                         
 
1.  Canon 1 provides: ―An independent and honorable judiciary is 
indispensable to justice in our society.  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.  The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further 
that objective.‖  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1.   
 
2.  Canon 2A provides: ―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.‖  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A.   
 
3.  Canon 3B(4) provides: ―A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous 
to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an 
official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court 
officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.‖  Fla. Code of Jud. 
Conduct, Canon 3B(4).     
 
4.  Canon 3B(5) provides: ―A judge shall perform judicial duties without 
bias or prejudice.  A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by 
words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or 
prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual 
orientation, or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials, and 
 
 
- 3 - 
Specifically, the Notice of Formal Charges stated multiple allegations of tardiness 
or actions that caused scheduling inconveniences or inefficiencies.  Among them 
were allegations that Judge Singbush (1) was habitually late for court; (2) offered 
to resume hearings that could not be concluded in the time allotted at inconvenient 
dates and times, such as Friday at 5:00 p.m. or Saturday morning; (3) took 
multiple, lengthy smoke breaks, which compromised the parties’ ability to have 
their cases heard promptly; (4) routinely failed to appear on time at first 
appearances for the Marion County Jail, generally arriving at 11:00 a.m. for first 
appearances scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m.; (5) took long lunch breaks when 
scheduled for first appearance duties, which caused proceedings to finish as late as 
8:00 p.m.; and (6) had previously responded to allegations of tardiness in 
responding to a 6(b) Notice of Investigation in JQC#95-197, which was dismissed 
by the Investigative Panel.   
                                                                                                                                   
others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.  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 proceeding.‖  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(5).   
 
5.  Canon 3B(7) provides in pertinent part: ―A judge shall accord to every 
person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to 
be heard according to law.‖  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(7).   
 
6.  Canon 3B(8) provides: ―A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters 
promptly, efficiently, and fairly.‖  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(8).   
 
 
- 4 - 
The Notice of Formal Charges also alleged violations pertaining to 
Jumbolair, Inc. v. Garemore, No. 02-2312-CA-G (Fla. Marion Cty. Ct. 2006), in 
which Judge Singbush presided.  Specifically, the notice alleged that Judge 
Singbush, on his own initiative, and without notice to the parties, undertook to 
obtain a National Crime Information Center (NCIC) report that pertained to one of 
the witnesses.  This action prompted counsel for Jumbolair to move for a mistrial.  
In responding to that motion, Judge Singbush made a statement which introduced 
religion and religious beliefs into his decision-making process.  His statement was 
as follows:  
I don’t know of anybody that’s made a mistake—and except for 
perhaps one, and for that we murdered him.  You know, he was 
faultless and we murdered him for it.  That’s not politically correct but 
I happen to believe in God. . . . Christ is the intercessor. 
 
Further, the notice alleged that when the impropriety of obtaining the NCIC report 
was raised, Judge Singbush gave the document to counsel for that witness, in 
violation of section 119.071(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), and 28 C.F.R. § 20.33.  
Additionally, after the trial concluded on April 1, 2005, Judge Singbush delayed 
filing his judgment until April 3, 2006.  
Judge Singbush filed an answer to the Notice of Formal Charges on May 31, 
2011.  On September 2, 2011, Judge Singbush filed an amended answer to the 
Notice of Formal Charges.  Ultimately, the JQC charges resulted in an April 18, 
2012, stipulation between the JQC and Judge Singbush.  In the stipulation filed in 
 
 
- 5 - 
this Court, the Investigative Panel issued its Findings and Recommendation, and 
the panel waived oral argument before this Court.  Further, Judge Singbush waived 
his right to any further hearing or proceedings if this Court accepts the stipulation 
and recommendations of discipline.  He also agreed that this proceeding could be 
reopened if future complaints of tardiness or inappropriate religious statements 
were made against him to the JQC.  We first examine the findings supporting the 
stipulation and the disciplinary recommendation. 
B. The Stipulation 
 
In the stipulation entered into and filed in this Court on April 18, 2012, 
Judge Singbush admitted that (1) ―since his election in 1991, [he] has been 
habitually tardy for hearings, first appearances, and trials for which he was the 
presiding judge‖; (2) ―when tardy, [he] was often tardy for more than 15 minutes‖; 
(3) ―[his] tardiness inconveniences and economically burdens lawyers, litigants 
and the judicial system‖; (4) ―the majority of the times [he] was late to [c]ourt were 
without good cause‖; and (5) he did make a statement introducing religion or his 
religious beliefs into the decision-making process.  Judge Singbush further 
stipulated that since September 2011, he has provided written weekly logs 
demonstrating timeliness in his attendance at court proceedings to special counsel 
for the JQC.  Judge Singbush also admitted his conduct violated Canons 1, 3B(4), 
and 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The Investigative Panel, however, 
 
 
- 6 - 
found that the religious statement by Judge Singbush was an isolated incident.  It 
also found that he did not act improperly in connection with the NCIC report.     
 
Finally, the JQC and Judge Singbush agreed that a public reprimand is the 
appropriate discipline under the circumstances of this case.  In addition, the JQC 
and Judge Singbush agreed that Judge Singbush would submit to the JQC a signed 
letter of apology to the public, his fellow judges, and the legal community, and 
written weekly logs documenting timeliness at court proceedings to special counsel 
for the JQC for one year after the stipulation is accepted by this Court.  We turn 
now to the proper scope of review in this case. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Scope of Review 
 
The Court may ―accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the [JQC].‖  Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.7  
                                         
 
7.  The Florida Constitution provides: 
  
(1) The supreme court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or 
in part the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the [judicial 
qualifications] commission and it may order that the justice or judge 
be subjected to appropriate discipline, or be removed from office with 
termination of compensation for willful or persistent failure to 
perform judicial duties or for other conduct unbecoming a member of 
the judiciary demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office, or be 
involuntarily retired for any permanent disability that seriously 
interferes with the performance of judicial duties.  Malafides, scienter 
or moral turpitude on the part of a justice or judge shall not be 
required for removal from office of a justice or judge whose conduct 
 
 
- 7 - 
Under rule 6(j) of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules, the 
Investigative Panel may reach an agreement with a judge stipulating to the findings 
and recommendation as to discipline, and that stipulation shall be transmitted 
directly to the Supreme Court for review.  See Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm’n R. 6(j).8  
When considering whether to approve a stipulation between the JQC and a judge, 
this Court will consider both the terms of the stipulation and the findings of the 
JQC.  See In re Downey, 937 So. 2d 643, 649 (Fla. 2006) (citing In re Angel, 867 
So. 2d 379, 382-83 (Fla. 2004)).  
―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.‖  In re Pando, 903 So. 2d 
902, 903 (Fla. 2005).  ―In cases where a judge admits to wrongdoing and the JQC’s 
findings are undisputed this Court will ordinarily conclude that the JQC’s findings 
are supported by clear and convincing evidence.‖  In re Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334, 337 
                                                                                                                                   
demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office.  After the filing of a 
formal proceeding and upon request of the investigative panel, the 
supreme court may suspend the justice or judge from office, with or 
without compensation, pending final determination of the inquiry.  
Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. 
 
8.  Rule 6(j) provides: 
 
(j)  The Investigative Panel may reach agreement with a judge on discipline 
or disability, and such stipulation shall be transmitted directly to the Supreme 
Court to accept, reject or modify in whole or in part. 
 
 
- 8 - 
(Fla. 2005).  A judge’s admission of the misconduct and the impropriety of that 
conduct ―bolster[s] the JQC’s findings, which we give great weight as we consider 
its recommendation of discipline.‖  In re Angel, 867 So. 2d at 383.  Although we 
give the disciplinary recommendation of the JQC great weight, and we give full 
consideration to the provisions of the stipulation, ―the ultimate power and 
responsibility in making a determination rests with this Court.‖  In re Kinsey, 842 
So. 2d 77, 85 (Fla. 2003) (quoting In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)); 
accord Angel, 867 So. 2d at 382-83. 
B. The Findings of the JQC 
After a complete review of the record in this case, we conclude that there is 
clear and convincing evidence to support the JQC’s findings, and that the findings 
support the stipulation of the JQC and Judge Singbush.  In its Findings and 
Recommendation, the JQC found that Judge Singbush’s conduct violated Canons 
1, 3B(4), and 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Accordingly, we turn to an 
examination of the requirements of the Canons of Judicial Conduct at issue here. 
Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides in pertinent part: 
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to 
justice in our society.  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.  The provisions of 
this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective. 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
Thus, a judge must strive to enforce high standards of conduct by always 
personally observing those standards so that the integrity of the judiciary may be 
preserved.  As the commentary to Canon 1 explains:  
Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by 
the adherence of each judge to this responsibility.  Conversely, 
violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary 
and thereby does injury to the system of government under law. 
 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1 cmt.  We conclude that clear and convincing 
evidence supports the JQC’s finding that Judge Singbush’s conduct violated Canon 
1.  The evidence established that public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary 
was impaired by Judge Singbush’s unexcused, habitual tardiness and inappropriate 
statement regarding religion.     
Canon 3B(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: 
A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, 
jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an 
official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of 
staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and 
control.  
 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(4).  The commentary to Canon 3B(4) further 
explains: 
The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not 
inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the 
court.  Judges can be efficient and business-like while being patient 
and deliberate.   
 
 
 
- 10 - 
Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(4) cmt.  We conclude that clear and 
convincing evidence supports the JQC’s finding that Judge Singbush’s conduct 
violated Canon 3B(4).  The evidence established that Judge Singbush was not 
courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, and lawyers due to his habitual tardiness, 
which inconvenienced and economically burdened lawyers and litigants.    
The JQC also found that Judge Singbush violated Canon 3B(8) of the Code 
of Judicial Conduct, which provides, ―A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters 
promptly, efficiently, and fairly.‖  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(8).  The 
finding of the JQC that Judge Singbush violated Canon 3B(8) is supported by clear 
and convincing evidence.  He was habitually tardy, often for more than fifteen 
minutes and without good cause.  His behavior inconvenienced and economically 
burdened lawyers and litigants alike.         
The JQC found that these foregoing Canons were violated and we conclude 
that this finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.  
Further, Judge Singbush has agreed by stipulation that his conduct resulted in 
violations of Canons 1, 3B(4), and 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Based 
on this stipulation, we conclude that the findings of the JQC are supported by clear 
and convincing evidence.  Thus, ―the Court gives the findings persuasive force and 
great weight in considering the JQC’s recommendation of discipline.‖  In re 
Maloney, 916 So. 2d 786, 787-88 (Fla. 2005).  We turn now to consideration of the 
 
 
- 11 - 
recommendation that Judge Singbush receive a public reprimand, write a letter of 
public apology, and submit written weekly logs documenting timeliness at court 
proceedings to special counsel for the JQC for one year after the stipulation is 
accepted by this Court. 
C. Recommended Discipline 
In the Findings and Recommendation, the JQC concluded that Judge 
Singbush was habitually tardy to court proceedings, the majority of those incidents 
were without good cause, and his statement referring to religion, although 
inappropriate, was an isolated incident.  Judge Singbush recognized the 
impropriety of his behavior and accepted full responsibility for his actions.  Thus, 
we agree with the JQC’s finding that ―the interests of justice and sound judicial 
administration will be served‖ by a public reprimand of Judge Singbush; 
submission to the JQC of a signed letter of apology to the public, his fellow judges, 
and the legal community; and continued submission of weekly logs documenting 
timeliness at court proceedings to special counsel for the JQC for one year.   
 
This discipline is in accord with our existing precedent in other cases 
involving habitual tardiness for trials and hearings, and inappropriate statements 
such as those injecting religion into the decision-making process.  See, e.g., In re 
Woodard, 919 So. 2d 389, 392 (Fla. 2006) (approving a public reprimand and 
completion of anger management counseling for frequent tardiness and rudeness 
 
 
- 12 - 
with counsel, witnesses, and parties appearing before the judge); In re Schapiro, 
845 So. 2d 170, 174 (Fla. 2003) (approving public reprimand, psychological 
therapy, and public letters of apology for a judge who engaged in a pattern of rude 
and intemperate courtroom behavior); In re Golden, 645 So. 2d 970, 972 (Fla. 
1994) (approving public reprimand for a judge who missed a trial for non-
emergency reasons, was consistently late for trials and hearings, and used 
inappropriate language while presiding over cases); In re Trettis, 577 So. 2d 1312, 
1313 (Fla. 1991) (approving public reprimand and continuation of prescribed or 
recommended treatment for stress where, among other improprieties, judge made 
inappropriate comments on pending proceeding).    
For all these reasons, we find that a public reprimand, submission of a 
signed letter of public apology to the JQC, and submission of written weekly logs 
to special counsel of the JQC for one year after the publication of this opinion are 
the appropriate sanctions in this case. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, we approve of the stipulation and the JQC’s 
Findings and Recommendation recommending that Judge Singbush receive a 
public reprimand, submit written weekly logs to special counsel of the JQC for one 
year after the publication of this opinion, and submit a signed letter of public 
apology to the JQC.  Accordingly, we hereby command Judge Singbush to appear 
 
 
- 13 - 
before this Court for administration of a public reprimand at a time to be 
established by the Clerk of this Court. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED.   
 
Original Proceedings – Judicial Qualifications Commission 
 
Miles A. McGrane, III, Chair, McGrane, Nosich and Ganz, P.A., Coral Gables, 
Florida, Michael L. Schneider, Tallahassee, Florida, E. Lanny Russell and 
Nicholas W. Morcom of Smith, Hulsey and Busey, Jacksonville, Florida,  
 
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
William H. Phelan, Jr. of Bond, Arnett and Phelan, P.A., Ocala, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge Singbush, Respondent