Title: Inquiry Concerning A Judge, No. 05-05 Re: James R. Adams

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC06-249 
____________ 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE,  
NO. 05-05 
RE:  JAMES R. ADAMS. 
 
[May 18, 2006] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We review the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Judicial 
Qualifications Commission (JQC) concerning Lee County Judge James R. Adams. 
We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const.  We approve the parties’ 
stipulation to allegations that Judge Adams had an inappropriate romantic 
relationship with an attorney who was practicing before him and the JQC’s finding 
that this misconduct violated three canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  We 
also approve the stipulated discipline of a public reprimand. 
FACTS 
 
The JQC charged that during 2004 Judge Adams violated three canons of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct by having a romantic relationship with an attorney who 
appeared before him “in a considerable number of cases.”  The allegations 
 
 
- 2 -
specified that Judge Adams granted numerous continuances requested by the 
attorney in five cases, and that Judge Adams dismissed the charges in four traffic 
cases in which the attorney represented the defendant.  Judge Adams admitted the 
allegations in a preliminary hearing before the JQC Investigative Panel and again 
in a formal stipulation.  Based on the stipulation, the Investigative Panel concluded 
that Judge Adams violated Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and 
recommended a public reprimand. 
 
Canon 1 provides in full: 
 
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.  
Canon 2A provides in pertinent part that a judge “shall act at all times in a manner 
that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”  
Canon 2B states that a judge “shall not allow family, social, political or other 
relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”  Canon 3B(5) 
provides that a judge “shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.”  
Canon 3B(8) specifies that a judge “shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, 
efficiently, and fairly.” 
REVIEW OF JQC FINDINGS 
 
 
- 3 -
 
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.  Judge Adams has 
admitted the alleged wrongdoing and does not dispute the JQC’s findings.  
Accordingly, we conclude that the findings are supported by clear and convincing 
evidence, the level of proof necessary to impose discipline.  See In re Diaz, 908 So. 
2d 334, 337 (Fla. 2005) (stating that Court will ordinarily accept undisputed facts 
and admissions of wrongdoing as sufficient proof by clear and convincing 
evidence).   
 
We further conclude that this misconduct was in violation of the three 
canons specified above.  A judge who enters into a romantic relationship with a 
lawyer who practices before the judge, and then continues to preside over matters 
in which the lawyer appears as counsel, transgresses the Code of Judicial Conduct 
in both letter and spirit.  Judge Adams failed to maintain the high standards of 
conduct necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, violating Canon 1.  He 
also failed to act in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary, 
violating Canon 2A.  Further, his conduct tended to create the impression that he 
allowed a personal relationship to influence his judgment, contrary to Canon 2B, 
and that he would have difficulty performing his judicial duties fairly and without 
bias, contrary to Canons 3B(5) and 3B(8). 
 
 
- 4 -
 
Even in the absence of evidence that a romantic relationship with an attorney 
practicing in a judge’s court has influenced the judge’s judgment, the judge’s 
authority necessarily suffers.  First, the intimate relationship itself is contrary to the 
judge’s role of maintaining detached neutrality as to the litigants and lawyers who 
appear in his or her courtroom.  Second, in continuing to preside over cases in 
which the lawyer appears during the relationship, the judge necessarily depletes the 
single most important source of his or her authority—the perception of the legal 
community and public that the judge is absolutely impartial in deciding cases.   
 
The Commentary to Canon 2A addresses misconduct creating an appearance 
of impropriety: 
 
Irresponsible or improper conduct by judges erodes public 
confidence in the judiciary.  A judge must avoid all impropriety and 
appearance of impropriety.  A judge must expect to be the subject of 
constant public scrutiny. . . . 
 
. . . The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the 
conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the 
relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a 
perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities 
with integrity, impartiality, and confidence is impaired. 
As we have stated in ordering the discipline of a judge for failing to disclose that 
counsel appearing before him was representing a member of the judge’s family in a 
hotly contested case, “Judges must do all that is reasonably necessary to minimize 
the appearance of impropriety.  They must remain cognizant of the fact that even in 
 
 
- 5 -
situations where they personally believe that their judgment would not be colored, 
public perception may differ.”  In re Frank, 753 So. 2d 1228, 1240 (Fla. 2000). 
 
In his appearance before the JQC Investigative Panel, Judge Adams 
acknowledged that he should not have entered into the relationship.  This exercise 
of 20-20 hindsight aside, our chief concerns in fulfilling our duties under article V, 
section 12 are the effect of this relationship on the integrity of the judiciary and the 
administration of justice.  In the stipulation, Judge Adams admitted that the 
continuances he granted to the attorney with whom he was involved caused his 
impartiality to be brought into question.  Judge Adams also acknowledged that at 
the very least, the continuances and dismissals created the appearance of 
impropriety.  We wholeheartedly agree.  Accordingly, we conclude that Judge 
Adams violated Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to 
personally observe high standards of conduct, by creating the appearance that a 
personal relationship influenced his judgment, and by creating the appearance of 
bias in the performance of his judicial duties. 
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 agreement with Judge 
Adams on the recommended sanction, the JQC Investigative Panel noted that 
 
 
- 6 -
Judge Adams accepted full responsibility for his misconduct during the 
relationship, which lasted for approximately two months, admitted that it should 
not have occurred, and regrets and apologizes for the misconduct.  Further, the 
JQC recognized that Judge Adams has an otherwise unblemished record as a judge 
and is active in his community.  Finally, from our review of the record, we 
conclude that there is no evidence that the relationship actually influenced his 
actions in any of the cases involving the attorney.  If evidence had demonstrated 
that the relationship affected the disposition of any matter before the judge, we 
would not hesitate to impose stiffer discipline.  On the record before us, we agree 
that the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand by this Court, which we have 
scheduled by separate order for June 7, 2006. 
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
 
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission 
 
Honorable James R. Wolf, Chair, Tallahassee, Florida, Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., 
General Counsel, Tampa, Florida, and Brook S. Kennerly, Executive Director, 
Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
 
 
- 7 -
Scott K. Tozian and Gwendolyn H. Hinkle of Smith, Tozian and Hinkle, P.A., 
Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge James R. Adams, Respondent