Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC15-2148

____________

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 15-200 

RE: JOHN PATRICK CONTINI.

[December 1, 2016]

REVISED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In this case, we review the Findings and Recommendations of the Florida 

Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC). The JQC recommends that Judge John 

P. Contini receive the sanction of a public reprimand plus the conditions that he 

hand deliver a written apology letter, continue active judicial mentoring for three 

years, set up and complete a stress management program, and be assessed the costs 

of these proceedings. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. For the 

reasons that follow, we approve the JQC’s findings and recommended discipline.

BACKGROUND

Judge Contini of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit took office in January 

2015. On October 9, 2015, the JQC filed a Notice of Formal Charges against 

Judge Contini for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), 3B(7), 3B(9), and 
- 2 -

3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.1 As detailed below, these violations 

manifested themselves threefold: (1) sending an ex parte e-mail to the Broward 

Public Defenders Office; (2) failing to seek a recusal or transfer when an appeal 

effectively froze his division; and (3) making impertinent and belittling remarks in 

open court about a pending matter.

During his first day of attendance at Phase I of Florida’s Judicial College, in 

March 2015, Judge Contini sent the Broward Public Defender’s Office an ex parte

e-mail. That e-mail—which contained suggestions for the use of a proposed order 

as a general template for downward departure motions—was neither copied nor 

forwarded to the Broward State Attorney’s Office at that time. Instead, Judge 

Contini waited seven days, until he returned home to the bench after attending the 

Judicial College, to distribute the order to several state attorneys. On March 26, 

2015, after the State Attorney’s Office became aware of the ex parte

communication, the State filed a motion to disqualify Judge Contini from all open 

pending criminal cases. Judge Contini denied that motion as legally insufficient. 

As a result, on April 9, 2015, the State, through the Attorney General’s 

Office, petitioned the Fourth District Court of Appeal for a writ of prohibition

 

1. The Notice also alleged violations of Canons 4A(1), 4A(2), 4A(3), 4A(4), 

4A(5), 5A(1), 5A(2), 5A(3), 5A(4), and 5A(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct; 

however, those allegations were without factual support.
- 3 -

seeking to disqualify Judge Contini from a list of 962 cases. On June 10, 2015, the 

Fourth District issued an order to show cause concerning the writ, which stayed 

further proceedings in the cases to which it applied. Although there was no formal 

stay in effect until the show cause order was issued, all parties acted as though a 

stay was in effect between March 26 and June 10. Judge Contini’s division—the 

criminal division—was essentially frozen, yet he neither recused himself sua 

sponte nor sought an administrative transfer. Instead, he remained within the 

division hoping for personal vindication.

While the writ proceedings were pending, on May 4, 2015, the JQC served 

Judge Contini with a Notice of Investigation with regard to his ex parte e-mail. In 

response, Judge Contini acknowledged that the e-mail was a “serious mistake” and 

explained that he denied the disqualification motion because the ex parte e-mail—

while improper—was general in nature and unrelated to any particular case. Still, 

Judge Contini appeared before the JQC Investigative Panel on June 5, 2015, 

offered “no excuses,” and apologized for his conduct. The JQC took his testimony 

under advisement, but it did not vote on whether to pursue formal charges.

It appears that Judge Contini became increasingly frustrated until he lost his 

temper in open court during August 11 and 12, 2015, hearings. In one instance, he 

said, “And if a prosecutor, someone with the AG’s office, wants to put that 

person’s case on their disingenuous list of cases that are pending sentencing, that’s 
- 4 -

a lie from the pit of hell, and that is a fraud on the Fourth [District].” He wished 

that the Fourth District would “spank the person who put [a case on the] 

disingenuous list” and “ream out the idiot who put [that case] on the list.” The 

assistant attorney general who signed the initial list was not present. However, 

Judge Contini chastised her by name for “misleading” and committing “fraud on 

the Fourth [District].” In another instance, Judge Contini threatened a state 

attorney with contempt while raising his voice and accusing him of inappropriate 

behavior. Judge Contini demanded that the state attorney admit to assisting the 

assistant state attorney who created the initial list and ordered bailiffs to escort the 

attorney from the courtroom after the exchange.

Almost immediately following the August 11 and 12 exchanges, Judge 

Contini sought an administrative transfer. Before filing formal charges, the JQC 

held a second investigative hearing during which Judge Contini explained that he 

disagreed with the State’s list of cases, but he admitted that he “personified 

incivility” and offered “no excuses.” After a Final Hearing, the JQC issued its 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations, which Judge Contini expressly 

accepted.

The JQC determined that “Judge Contini was a new judge, who 

underestimated the process of transitioning from a well-respected, professional 

lawyer to a judge, and made a series of significant missteps.” However, the JQC 
- 5 -

did not recommend suspension or removal for this misconduct. Due to the nature 

of Judge Contini’s variegated infractions, and the mitigating factors in this case, 

the JQC reasoned that a public reprimand plus conditions were appropriate.

ANALYSIS

The Florida Constitution provides that, in a case of judicial misconduct, this 

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. This Court 

reviews JQC findings to ensure that there is clear and convincing evidence to 

support the alleged misconduct. In re Watson, 174 So. 3d 364, 368 (Fla. 2015), 

cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 863 (2016). When the respondent 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 Collins, 195 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2016); In re Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334, 337 

(Fla. 2005). 

Judge Contini acknowledged that his conduct constituted the following 

violations of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct: (1) sending the ex parte e-mail

(Canon 3B(7)2); (2) failing to seek a recusal or administrative transfer from his 

division when the State’s appeal effectively froze the criminal division (Canon 

 

2. “A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte

communications . . . .”
- 6 -

3E(1)3); and (3) making impertinent and inappropriate comments during the 

August 11 and 12 hearings (Canons 1,4 2A,5 3B(4),6and 3B(9)7). Thus, based on 

this Court’s precedent and Judge Contini’s admissions, we conclude that the JQC 

findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

When JQC findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, the 

findings are entitled to “persuasive force and great weight.” In re Maloney, 916 

So. 2d 786, 787-88 (Fla. 2005). “However, the ultimate power and responsibility 

in making a determination rests with this Court,” In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 

(Fla. 1994); therefore, this Court “reviews the recommended discipline to 

determine whether it should be approved.” In re Flood, 150 So. 3d 1097, 1098 

(Fla. 2014).

 

3. “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the 

judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . .”

4. “A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing 

high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards . . . .”

5. “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.”

6. “A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, 

witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official 

capacity . . . .”

7. “A judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any 

court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its 

outcome or impair its fairness . . . .”
- 7 -

The people of Florida demand that our judiciary meet a high standard of 

ethics. See In re Hawkins, 151 So. 3d 1200, 1212 (Fla. 2014). Altogether, Judge 

Contini’s conduct fell well below that standard. His actions “not only damaged 

public confidence in him as a judicial officer but struck ‘at the very roots of an 

effective judiciary . . . .’ ” In re Shea, 110 So. 3d 414, 418 (Fla. 2013). 

Accordingly, Judge Contini’s conduct warrants serious review to determine 

whether he possesses the present fitness to hold office as required by article V, 

section 12, of the Florida Constitution.

Although Judge Contini’s conduct was as improper as it was rude, this 

Court’s precedent suggests that a public reprimand with additional conditions are

appropriate under these circumstances. See generally In re Shea, 110 So. 3d 414 

(demeaning comments made to litigants and attorneys over the course of three 

years); In re Schapiro, 845 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2003) (pattern of belittling, 

embarrassing conduct directed at attorneys over four years); In re Collins, 195 So. 

3d at 1129 (“berat[ing] and belittl[ing] a victim of domestic violence” once); In re 

Holder, 195 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 2016) (holding that even a well-intentioned ex parte

communication may be a conduct violation). In Shea, this Court approved a 

similar recommendation based on the JQC findings. 110 So. 3d at 416-17. As in 

this case, Judge Shea admitted his Code of Judicial Conduct violations for 
- 8 -

repeatedly losing his temper in open court. Id. This Court approved the public 

reprimand plus conditions tailored to the misconduct. Id. at 419.

To be sure, the nature of a judge’s misconduct is central to our analysis; 

however, this Court also considers mitigating factors when reviewing JQC 

recommendations. See In re Eriksson, 36 So. 3d 580, 595 (Fla. 2010). Judge 

Contini accepted full responsibility for his actions at every stage of these 

proceedings and, according to the JQC, he “expressed sincere remorse.” Also, 

Judge Contini was new to the bench, sending the ex parte e-mail during his first 

day of Judicial College. The fact that he distributed the order to the State within a 

week suggests that his ex parte communication was not intentionally prejudicial. 

Finally, Judge Contini apologized to one attorney, agreed to apologize to another, 

and has agreed to mental health treatment and guidance from experienced judges, 

which are all conditions directly relevant to his misconduct. 

The mitigation and severity of misconduct here is comparable to that 

reflected in Shea; therefore, an analogous result is appropriate. Were it not for the 

mitigating circumstances and Judge Contini’s full and complete cooperation with 

the JQC, this Court could have considered more severe sanctions. In light of Judge 

Contini’s actions, the relevant case law, and the mitigating factors, these sanctions

and conditions imposed today are fitting and appropriate. Thus, without condoning 

Judge Contini’s misconduct, this Court approves the JQC recommendations.
- 9 -

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we approve the JQC’s Findings and Recommendations of 

a public reprimand, letter of apology, continued judicial mentoring, completion of 

a mental health program, and assessment of costs of these proceedings. 

Accordingly, we hereby command Judge John P. Contini 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 1228, 1242 (Fla. 2000).

It is so ordered.

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

and PERRY, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission

Hon. Kerry I. Evander, Chair, Michael Louis Schneider, Executive Director and

General Counsel, and Alexander John Williams, Special Counsel and Assistant 

General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida; Hon. Robert James Morris, Jr., Hearing 

Panel Chair, Lakeland, Florida; and Lauri Waldman Ross of Ross & Girten, 

Miami, Florida,

for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner

David Bill Rothman and Jeanne T. Melendez of Rothman & Associates, P.A., 

Miami, Florida; and Bruce S. Rogow and Tara A. Campion of Bruce S. Rogow,

P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida,

for Judge John Patrick Contini, Respondent