Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC2023-1706

____________

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 2023-029 

RE: HON. CASEY L. WOOLSEY.

June 20, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission has presented to the 

Court its Findings and Recommendation of Discipline regarding St. 

Johns County Judge Casey L. Woolsey, together with a stipulation 

entered by the JQC and Judge Woolsey. The parties agree that this 

matter should be resolved through a public reprimand.

At issue are two distinct acts that occurred during now-Judge 

Woolsey’s first electoral campaign for judicial office, in 2022. First, 

Judge Woolsey approved a social media post that misleadingly 

suggested she had raised $100,000 from third parties, when the 

announced figure included a $50,000 loan from Woolsey herself. 

Second, Judge Woolsey left the following recorded voicemail 

message for a voter: “Hey, sorry I missed you. My name is Casey 
- 2 -

Woolsey and I am calling because I’m running for County Court 

Judge here in St. Johns County. So, I just wanted to introduce 

myself and ask if you would consider voting for me when you’re 

filling in your mail-in ballots. I am a conservative, and my website 

is . . . .”

The JQC found, and the parties stipulated, that Judge 

Woolsey’s approval of the misleading social media post violated 

Canon 7A(3)(e)(ii). Among other things, that canon prohibits 

judicial candidates from misrepresenting facts about themselves. 

We approve this aspect of the findings, recommendation, and 

stipulation without further discussion.

The JQC further found, and the parties stipulated, that Judge 

Woolsey violated Canon 7 by referring to herself as “a conservative” 

in a campaign-related voicemail. Canon 7 prohibits judges and 

judicial candidates from engaging in “inappropriate political 

activity.” To explain its finding on this point, the JQC reasoned: 

“When Judge Woolsey asserted that she was a ‘conservative,’ she 

inserted partisan politics into a judicial election in a county where 

its residents are overwhelmingly registered as Republican and voted 

overwhelmingly for Republican candidates in 2022.” The 
- 3 -

stipulation adds: “Judge Woolsey has expressed remorse and 

regrets that describing herself as a ‘conservative’ called into 

question the impartiality and integrity of the non-partisan judicial 

elections.”

We do not agree that Judge Woolsey’s voicemail violated 

Canon 7. The statement “I am a conservative” is not partisan, 

either inherently or (as the JQC believed) when made during an 

election campaign in a predominantly Republican community. Nor 

is the statement inconsistent with “the dignity appropriate to 

judicial office” or with “the impartiality, integrity, and independence 

of the judiciary.” Canon 7A(3)(b). To describe oneself as a 

“conservative” does not signal bias (pro or con) toward anyone or on 

any issue. Nor does it reasonably call into doubt the fairness of any 

future judicial proceeding involving the candidate. In political and 

legal discourse, “conservative” is an indeterminate word of many 

meanings and connotations. Even if we assume that a candidate 

might use the word “conservative” to associate herself with certain 

unstated views or personal dispositions, this Court has already 

observed that “our judicial code does not prohibit a candidate from 
- 4 -

discussing his or her philosophical beliefs.” In re Kinsey, 842 So. 

2d 77, 88 (Fla. 2003).

For these reasons, we approve the findings, recommendation, 

and stipulation only to the extent that they pertain to Judge 

Woolsey’s social media post. As discipline, we impose a public 

reprimand, which shall be accomplished by the publication of this 

opinion.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, 

FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION 

AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission

Gregory W. Coleman, Chair, Blan L. Teagle, Executive Director, and 

Alexander J. Williams, General Counsel, Judicial Qualifications 

Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; and Vincent A. Citro of Losey 

PLLC, Special Counsel, Orlando, Florida,

for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner

David B. Rothman of Rothman & Associates, P.A., Miami, Florida,

for Judge Casey L. Woolsey, Respondent