Title: Inquiry Concerning Judge Deborah White-Labora

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-950 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 18-108 RE: DEBORAH WHITE-
LABORA. 
 
November 15, 2018 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
In this case, we review the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) concerning Judge Deborah White-
Labora, a judge of the Miami-Dade County Court, and the stipulation entered into 
between Judge White-Labora and the JQC.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, 
Fla. Const.  As explained below, we approve the parties’ stipulation to the 
allegation that Judge White-Labora improperly provided a character reference 
letter, on her official court stationery, on behalf of a criminal defendant awaiting 
sentencing in federal court, as well as the JQC’s finding that this misconduct 
violated two canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  We also approve the 
stipulated discipline of a public reprimand.   
 
 
- 2 - 
FACTS 
 
In its Notice of Formal Charges, the JQC accused Judge White-Labora of 
engaging in improper conduct in violation of two canons of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct, in pertinent part as follows: 
1.  In January of 2018, you wrote a character reference letter on 
behalf of a criminal defendant awaiting sentencing in federal 
court. . . .  This letter was written on your judicial letter head, and 
signed “Deborah White-Labora, County Court Judge.” . . .  
2.  Such character reference letters are prohibited by the Canons 
and have resulted in published disciplinary cases. . . . 
3.  Your public support for this defendant was noted in an 
article published by the Miami-Herald. 
Your actions constitute inappropriate conduct that violate 
Canons 1 and 2 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  
 
Following an investigative hearing, Judge White-Labora entered into a 
factual stipulation with the JQC admitting the charges, apologizing for her 
improper conduct, and accepting the public reprimand as recommended by the 
JQC investigative panel.  Based on the stipulation, the panel concluded that Judge 
White-Labora violated Canons 11 and 22 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  
                                          
 
1.  Canon 1 states: “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.” 
 
2.  Canon 2 states, in pertinent part:  
 
 
- 3 - 
Thereafter, the JQC panel made its findings and recommendations of discipline, in 
which it stated in pertinent part: 
The Investigative Panel of the Commission has now entered 
into a Stipulation with Judge White-Labora in which Judge White-
Labora admits that her conduct, in writing and sending a letter of 
reference to a sentencing judge, on behalf of a criminal defendant 
awaiting sentencing in federal court[,] was inappropriate.  This 
conduct violated Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as 
set forth in the Stipulation and Notice of Formal Charges submitted 
herewith.   
Judge White-Labora has admitted the foregoing, accepts full 
responsibility, and acknowledges that such conduct should not have 
occurred.  She has cooperated fully with the JQC.  
The Judicial Qualifications Commission has concluded that 
while the judge did not intend to violate the Canons, she did not take 
appropriate steps to inform herself about the propriety of sending such 
a letter.  Additionally, the Commission is mindful of the fact that her 
action in writing the letter, while inappropriate, was not motivated by 
selfish interests or motives.  The JQC also notes Judge White-
Labora’s lengthy and heretofore unblemished service as a judicial 
officer.  
Finally, the Commission believes that it is useful to note how 
such misconduct has been treated in the past [namely through the 
sanction of a public reprimand]. . . . 
Accordingly, the Commission therefore finds and recommends 
that in the interests of justice, the public welfare and sound juridical 
                                          
 
A.  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. 
B.  A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other 
relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.  A 
judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the 
private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or 
permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special 
position to influence the judge.  A judge shall not testify voluntarily as 
a character witness. 
 
- 4 - 
administration will be well served by a public reprimand of Judge 
White-Labora. 
 
JQC’S FINDINGS 
 
This Court may “accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part” the findings 
and conclusions of the JQC.  Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.  “This Court reviews 
the findings of the JQC to determine whether the alleged violations are supported 
by clear and convincing evidence, and reviews the recommended discipline to 
determine whether it should be approved.”  In re Holder, 195 So. 3d 1133, 1137 
(Fla. 2016) (quoting In re Flood, 150 So. 3d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2014)).  “Although 
this Court gives the findings and recommendations of the JQC great weight, the 
ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination to discipline a judge 
rests with this Court.”  Id. (quoting In re Flood, 150 So. 3d at 1098). 
Judge White-Labora has admitted to the factual allegations regarding her 
actions and does not dispute the JQC’s findings.  We have held that “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.”  Id. (quoting In re Flood, 150 So. 3d at 1098).  We do so in this case.   
We further conclude that Judge White-Labora violated Canons 1 and 2 by 
writing and submitting a character reference letter, on her official court stationery, 
on behalf of a criminal defendant awaiting sentencing in federal court.  By 
engaging in such conduct, Judge White-Labora failed to maintain the high 
 
- 5 - 
standards of conduct necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, violating 
Canon 1, and she acted in a manner that could potentially undermine public 
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, violating Canon 2A.  
Further, in violation of Canon 2B, Judge White-Labora created the appearance of 
impropriety and partiality by improperly lending the prestige of her office to 
advance the private interests of the defendant for whom she improperly acted as a 
character witness.   
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE 
This Court is empowered to accept, modify, or reject the JQC’s 
recommendations and “order that the . . . judge be subjected to appropriate 
discipline.”  Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.  In reaching an agreement with Judge 
White-Labora on the recommended sanction, the JQC Investigative Panel noted 
that Judge White-Labora fully cooperated with the JQC, admitted her misconduct, 
accepted full responsibility for it, and acknowledged that it should not have 
occurred.  The JQC also recognized that, although Judge White-Labora did not 
take the appropriate steps to inform herself of the propriety of sending the letter, 
she did not send the letter to promote selfish interests, and she has a lengthy and 
otherwise previously unblemished history of judicial service. 
Although we recognize that Judge White-Labora’s conduct was well-
intentioned, as Judge White-Labora understands by her agreement to the violations 
 
- 6 - 
and discipline, her conduct is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct.  “[T]he 
object of disciplinary proceedings is not for the purpose of inflicting punishment, 
but rather to gauge a judge’s fitness to serve as an impartial judicial officer.”  In re 
McMillan, 797 So. 2d 560, 571 (Fla. 2001).  Under our precedent, Judge White-
Labora’s conduct warrants a public reprimand.  See In re Ward, 654 So. 2d 549 
(Fla. 1995) (public reprimand appropriate sanction for judge who provided 
character reference letter on official court stationery on behalf of defendant 
awaiting sentencing in federal court); In re Abel, 632 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1994) 
(same).  
CONCLUSION 
 
We conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence to support the 
findings of fact for the charges, and we approve the stipulation entered into by 
Judge White-Labora and the JQC.  Accordingly, we hereby command Judge 
Deborah White-Labora to appear before this Court for the 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 LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
 
ANY MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION MUST BE FILED 
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS.  A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR 
REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MAY BE FILED WITHIN FIVE DAYS 
AFTER THE FILING OF THE MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION. 
 
- 7 - 
NOT FINAL UNTIL THIS TIME PERIOD EXPIRES TO FILE A 
REHEARING/CLARIFICATION MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission 
 
Honorable Krista Marx, Chair, Michael Louis Schneider, Executive Director and 
General Counsel, Alexander John Williams, Assistant General Counsel, Judicial 
Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
Judge Deborah White-Labora, Judge, pro se, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, 
Florida, 
 
for Respondent