Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC15-311

____________

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 14-557 RE: JESSICA J. 

RECKSIEDLER.

[April 9, 2015]

PER CURIAM.

In this case, we review the findings and recommendation of discipline of the 

Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), recommending that Judge 

Jessica J. Recksiedler, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge, receive the sanction 

of a public reprimand for violating Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Florida 

Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Recksiedler agreed to the JQC’s findings of fact 

and recommendation of discipline and entered into a stipulation. We have 

jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve 

the stipulation, the findings of fact, and the recommended discipline of a public 

reprimand.

I. BACKGROUND
- 2 -

The allegations in the Notice of Formal Charges filed by the JQC against 

Judge Recksiedler stem from a series of interviews before the Fifth District Court 

of Appeal Judicial Nominating Commission (abbreviated in the stipulation as the 

“5th DCA JNC”). As set forth in the stipulation:

During an interview on March 28, 2013, the JNC questioned Judge 

Recksiedler regarding her driving record. Then, on March 17, 2014,

while driving to another interview with the 5th DCA JNC, the Florida 

Highway Patrol stopped Judge Recksiedler and issued her a citation 

for speeding. The traffic stop caused Judge Recksiedler to be late for 

her interview with the JNC.

5. In her opening statement to the JNC on March 17, 2014, 

Judge Recksiedler addressed the Commission’s previously expressed 

concerns about her driving record by stating that she “takes its 

concerns about her driving seriously.” At no point during or after her 

interview, however, did Judge Recksiedler inform the members of the 

JNC that she had received a speeding ticket that morning. The JQC 

believes that the incompleteness of Judge Recksiedler’s statements to 

the JNC constitutes a lack of candor. See In re Holloway, 832 So. 2d 

716 (Fla. 2002) (holding that testimony in a proceeding that is 

misleading and incomplete constitutes an ethical violation).

6. Later, on September 18, 2014, Judge Recksiedler had a third 

interview before the 5th DCA JNC. That interview was videotaped by 

a local news organization. The link to the interview is: 

http://volusiaexposed.com/jnc/jnc9182014.html. During this 

interview, a Commissioner asked Judge Recksiedler about her driving 

record. “Judge, you came before us in March earlier this year and you 

addressed some of the commission’s concerns regarding your driving 

record and I was wondering how that was going. Have you had any 

stops this year?”

7. When testifying before the JQC investigative panel, Judge 

Recksiedler explained that she knew that each member of the JNC had 

background information that included her traffic record, including her 

March 17 stop. She misunderstood the question to be about stops 

since her March 17 JNC appearance when she had received the 

citation in route to the interview and as referenced by the questioner. 

Thus, Judge Recksiedler testified, she answered “no.” While her 
- 3 -

answer may not have been intentionally false, it was confusing and 

misleading. Judge Recksiedler acknowledges that she should have 

mentioned the March 17 traffic stop to avoid the confusion and to 

ensure that the commission was aware that she was not trying to avoid 

the issue.

The stipulation explains that Judge Recksiedler does not contest the JQC’s 

finding that her conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Code of 

Judicial Conduct. Judge Recksiedler also does not contest the JQC’s 

recommended discipline of a public reprimand as the appropriate sanction for these 

violations. 

II. ANALYSIS

Article V, section 12, of the Florida Constitution, provides that in cases of 

judicial misconduct, this Court “may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part 

the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the [JQC] and it may order that 

the . . . judge be subjected to appropriate discipline.” 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 Flood,

150 So. 3d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 2014) (quoting In re Woodard, 919 So. 2d 389, 390 

(Fla. 2006)). “Although this Court gives the findings and recommendations of the 

JQC great weight, the ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination 
- 4 -

to discipline a judge rests with this Court.” Id. (quoting In re Renke, 933 So. 2d 

482, 493 (Fla. 2006)). 

In its findings and recommendation of discipline, the JQC found that Judge 

Recksiedler’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Code of 

Judicial Conduct, which require a judge to act at all times in a manner that upholds 

the integrity and independence of the judiciary, to avoid the appearance of 

impropriety, and to avoid engaging in any activities that demean the judicial office. 

Canon 1 states: “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.” Fla. 

Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1. Canon 2A states: “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. Canon 4A(2) states: “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s 

quasi-judicial activities so that they do not . . . undermine the judge’s 

independence, integrity, or impartiality.” Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 4A(2). 

Canon 4A(3) states: “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s quasi-judicial

activities so that they do not . . . demean the judicial office.” Fla. Code of Jud. 

Conduct, Canon 4A(3).

As set forth in the JQC’s findings and recommendation:
- 5 -

The Investigative Panel of the Commission has now entered 

into a Stipulation with Judge Recksiedler in which Judge Recksiedler 

admits that her conduct in omitting and later providing factually 

inaccurate information regarding a traffic stop to the JNC was 

inappropriate. This conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) 

of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as set forth in the Stipulation . . . .

Judge Recksiedler has admitted the foregoing, accepts full 

responsibility, and acknowledges that such conduct should not have 

occurred.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission has concluded that 

while the judge did not provide the level of candor expected of a 

judicial officer, it appears that her testimony before the JNC was not 

intentionally dishonest[;] however, the statement of March 17, 2014, 

was incomplete through omission, and the statement during the 

September 18, 2014, interview, while perhaps the result of a 

misunderstanding, was factually inaccurate and Judge Recksiedler did 

not clarify her response. Accordingly, the Commission therefore 

finds and recommends that in the interests of justice, the public

welfare and sound judicial administration will be well served by a 

public reprimand of Judge Recksiedler.

Candor as a judge is clearly critical. The JQC determined that Judge 

Recksiedler’s lack of candor may not have been “intentionally false” but it was

“confusing and misleading.” The JQC further determined that omitting important 

information requested from the Fifth District Court of Appeal Judicial Nominating 

Commission and then later providing inaccurate information regarding the traffic 

stop “was inappropriate.” We agree with the JQC that the incompleteness and 

inaccuracy of the responses constitutes a lack of candor amounting to an ethical 

violation where, as here, the statements are misleading. See In re Holloway, 832 

So. 2d 716, 726-27 (Fla. 2002). We also agree with the JQC that Judge 
- 6 -

Recksiedler’s conduct demonstrated a lack of candor not befitting the high 

standards of ethical conduct that we expect of all judges in this state. 

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.” In re Flood, 150 So. 3d at 1098

(quoting In re Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334, 337 (Fla. 2005)). In this case, Judge 

Recksiedler admitted to the wrongdoing, and upon review, we determine that the 

JQC’s findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence. 

Accordingly, we agree with the JQC that Judge Recksiedler’s actions violated 

Canons 1, 2A, 4A(2), and 4A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Because we conclude that the findings of the JQC are supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, we give these findings “persuasive force and great weight” in 

our consideration of the JQC’s recommended discipline. Id. at 1099 (quoting In re 

Maloney, 916 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 2005)). The JQC has advised this Court that 

the interests of justice, the public welfare, and sound judicial administration will be 

well served by a public reprimand of Judge Recksiedler. We have also considered 

that Judge Recksiedler “accepts full responsibility for the conduct set forth above, 

admits that it should not have occurred, and regrets and apologizes for such 

conduct.” We therefore approve the recommended discipline of a public

reprimand.
- 7 -

III. CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, we conclude that there is clear and convincing 

evidence in support of the JQC’s findings of fact as to all four violations of the 

Code of Judicial Conduct, and we approve the stipulation entered into by Judge 

Recksiedler and the JQC. Accordingly, we hereby command Judge Jessica J. 

Recksiedler 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.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., 

concur.

LEWIS, J., did not participate.

PERRY, J., recused.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission

Ricardo Morales, III, Chair, and Alexander John Williams, Assistant General 

Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner

Larry Gibbs Turner of Turner, O’Connor, Kozlowski, Gainesville, Florida,

for Judge Jessica J. Recksiedler, Respondent