Title: Inquiry Concerning Judge Philip James Yacucci, Jr.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC16-2178
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 2, 2017

- 1 - 
 
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-2178 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 16-496 
RE: PHILIP JAMES YACUCCI, JR. 
 
[November 2, 2017] 
 
PER CURIAM.   
This matter is before the Court to review the determination of the Florida 
Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) that Judge Philip James Yacucci, Jr., 
violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(8), 3B(9), and 3(E)(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial 
Conduct.  The JQC recommends: (1) a public reprimand; (2) a thirty-day 
suspension without pay; (3) completion of a judicial ethics course within one year; 
and (4) payment of the costs of the JQC 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 Yacucci has served as a county court judge in the Nineteenth Judicial 
Circuit since 2002.  On December 8, 2016, the JQC Investigative Panel filed a 
 
- 2 - 
 
Notice of Formal Charges against Judge Yacucci for conduct in violation of 
Canons 1 (judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary), 2A 
(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), 
3B(8) (judge shall dispose of judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly), 
3B(9) (judge shall refrain from commenting publicly or non-publicly in ways that 
could interfere with fair trials or hearings), and 3E(1) (judge shall disqualify 
himself or herself in proceedings where his or her impartiality might reasonably be 
questioned) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  In his answer, Judge Yacucci denied 
that his conduct was violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  On May 1, 2017, 
the JQC Hearing Panel held an evidentiary hearing, and issued its “Findings of 
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations of the Hearing Panel, Florida 
Judicial Qualifications Commission” (Findings) on June 29, 2017.  In re Judge 
Philip James Yacucci, Jr., No. 16-496 (Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm’n June 29, 2017).   
FINDINGS OF THE HEARING PANEL 
 
Judge Yacucci’s violations occurred during the course of an adversarial and 
contentious professional relationship between Judge Yacucci and attorney Stephen 
Smith.  Id. at 1.  Judge Yacucci has served as a county court judge in St. Lucie 
County since 2002.  Id. at 3.  Smith, who joined his current employer “The Ticket 
Clinic” in 2009, handled all of the Ticket Clinic’s cases in St. Lucie County.  Id. at 
 
- 3 - 
 
4.  Judge Yacucci held Smith in contempt in 2009 for accidentally showing up late 
to a hearing, and again in 2014 where he jailed Smith for five days for “hotly 
disputed” reasons.  Id.  During the 2014 contempt finding, Judge Yacucci 
announced in the courtroom that he had “lost confidence” in Smith, and 
subsequently filed a Florida Bar complaint which was later resolved with no 
imposition of discipline.  Id. at 4-5.   
Thereafter, in 2014, Smith ran against Judge Yacucci for a county court seat 
in a highly combative election.  Id. at 5.  Judge Yacucci sued Smith and an 
electioneering communication organization (“ECO”) for defamation, invasion of 
privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Id.  Judge Yacucci 
obtained a temporary injunction against the ECO, but the Fourth District Court of 
Appeal in Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci, 162 So. 3d 68, 
72-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), overturned it for lacking supporting evidence and for 
triggering First Amendment concerns.  Id. at 5-6.   
Before election day, a public altercation between Smith and Judge Yacucci 
occurred at a polling place.  Id. at 6.  Judge Yacucci asserted that Smith made a 
sexual innuendo about Judge Yacucci’s wife, and that he responded with heated 
and profane words.  Id.  Smith asserted that the judge verbally attacked and 
physically assaulted him, and so he subsequently sued Judge Yacucci for assault, 
battery, and defamation.  Id.  During a televised interview in his courtroom 
 
- 4 - 
 
immediately following the incident, Judge Yacucci remarked that Smith “should 
not be a lawyer,” “should not be in a courtroom,” and that he is “truly a disgrace as 
a judicial candidate and really as a human being.”  Id.  
In December 2014, Judge Yacucci won the election, but later appeared 
before the JQC to discuss his behavior during the election.  Id.  Judge Yacucci 
informed the Investigative Panel that he would recuse himself on Smith’s cases, 
which he did for the following two-and-a-half years.  Id. at 7.  However, in 
September 2016, Judge Yacucci refused to recuse himself in State v. Harracksingh, 
2015-CT-2111, resolving that he had recused himself on Smith’s cases for long 
enough and that Smith “was simply a conduit of the Ticket Clinic,” which Judge 
Yacucci surmised had funded the ECO in the election campaign against him and 
was attempting to forum shop by funding judicial campaigns.  Id. at 7-8.   
On October 5, 2016, Smith petitioned for a writ of prohibition disqualifying 
Judge Yacucci from presiding over the Harracksingh case.  Id. at 8.  Thereafter, 
Judge Yacucci on his own initiative filed a response to Smith’s petition, detailing 
the history of disputes between Judge Yacucci and Smith.  Id.  Judge Yacucci later 
denied additional motions to disqualify filed by Smith, despite their legal 
sufficiency, because he wanted an appellate ruling and was “not going to recuse 
anymore” until he secured it.  Id. at 9.  Multiple parties subsequently joined the 
petition for writ of prohibition.  Id.    
 
- 5 - 
 
Judge Yacucci later sought guidance from the JQC but did not recuse 
himself despite advice that recusal was a safer course.  Id.  Instead, he filed a 
second unsolicited pleading in response to Smith’s petition for writ of prohibition, 
reiterating points about Smith’s contempt conviction, Bar complaint, and funding 
of judicial campaigns by the Ticket Clinic, as well as accusing appellate counsel of 
intentionally misleading the court.  Id. at 9-12.  On November 16, 2016, the circuit 
court granted the writ of prohibition, disqualifying Judge Yacucci from hearing 
several cases.  Id. at 12. 
At the May 1, 2017, evidentiary hearing, the Hearing Panel heard testimony 
from Judge Yacucci who maintained that he did not act inappropriately during the 
polling place altercation and in responding to Smith’s petition.  Id. at 13.  He 
further testified that his televised statements about Smith were truthful, and 
acknowledged he still held the same feelings about Smith.  Id. at 13-14.  Judge 
Yacucci defended his actions as necessary to counter the Ticket Clinic’s schemes, 
and “at no point” considered recusal from the viewpoint of Smith’s clients.  Id. at 
15-17.   
Ultimately, the Hearing Panel found Judge Yacucci guilty of violating 
Canons 1, 2A, 3B(8), 3B(9), and 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  
Id. at 19.  The Hearing Panel recognized that “[i]t is hard to conceive a situation 
more likely to create a reasonable fear of partiality and bias on the part of a litigant 
 
- 6 - 
 
than the long-standing, personal and professional disputes between these parties.”  
Id. at 20.  Accordingly, the Hearing Panel recommended: (1) a public reprimand; 
(2) a thirty-day suspension without pay; (3) completion of a judicial ethics course 
within one year; and (4) payment of the costs of the JQC proceedings.  Id. at 23-25. 
After the JQC filed the Hearing Panel’s Findings, this Court ordered Judge 
Yacucci to show cause why the recommended action should not be granted.  In his 
response, Judge Yacucci conceded the findings and most recommendations, 
disputing only the recommendation of a thirty-day suspension. 
ANALYSIS 
“According to article V, section 12(c)(1) of the Florida Constitution, this 
Court has discretion to either accept, reject, or modify the [JQC’s] findings and 
recommendation of discipline.”  In re Renke, 933 So. 2d 482, 493 (Fla. 2006).  
“This Court reviews the findings of the JQC to determine whether the alleged 
violations are supported by clear and convincing evidence . . . .”  In re Woodard, 
919 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2006).  “In cases 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 Diaz, 908 
So. 2d 334, 337 (Fla. 2005).  Judge Yacucci did not contest that his conduct 
violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(8), 3B(9), and 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial 
 
- 7 - 
 
Conduct, and the JQC’s findings are undisputed.  We therefore conclude that the 
JQC findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. 
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.’ ”  In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77, 85 (Fla. 
2003) (footnote omitted) (quoting In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)).  
This Court “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 at 390).  As previously explained, the JQC recommended: (1) 
a public reprimand; (2) a thirty-day suspension without pay; (3) completion of a 
judicial ethics course within one year; and (4) payment of the cost of the 
proceedings.  Because Judge Yacucci does not contest any aspect of the 
recommendation other than the thirty-day suspension, we limit our discussion to 
the suspension.   
Judge Yacucci argues that a thirty-day suspension without pay is excessive 
and inconsistent with this Court’s precedent.  To the contrary, because Judge 
Yacucci repeatedly violated his duty to be impartial and to disqualify himself from 
Smith’s cases, and because this Court’s precedent supports the imposition of this 
additional sanction, we conclude that suspension is an appropriate sanction.   
 
- 8 - 
 
 
Judge Yacucci’s conduct warrants a sanction harsher than a mere public 
reprimand, as his longstanding combative relationship with Smith created 
legitimate fears of partiality and bias on the part of several litigants before his 
court.  The acrimonious relationship between Judge Yacucci and Smith, marked by 
lawsuits, a public altercation and televised disparagement, the jailing of Smith for 
contempt, judicial campaign disputes, unsolicited attempts to influence a petition 
for writ of prohibition, and multiple refusals to disqualify himself, clearly 
displayed Judge Yacucci’s disregard for proper judicial conduct.  Further, the 
responses filed by Judge Yacucci disputed the charges against him and attempted 
to taint the court’s view of Smith.  The judge’s pattern of behavior towards Smith 
and his refusal to disqualify himself on several cases despite the legal sufficiency 
of Smith’s motions constitute clear and egregious violations of the Canons of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct.   
In cases involving misconduct of a similarly serious nature, where judges 
have diminished the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and in 
judicial impartiality, this Court has previously imposed sanctions such as 
suspension without pay in addition to a public reprimand.  See In re Holloway, 832 
So. 2d 716, 729 (Fla. 2002) (ordering thirty-day suspension without pay where a 
judge repeatedly confronted other judges and aided parties in an ex parte manner); 
In re Albritton, 940 So. 2d 1083, 1089 (Fla. 2006) (ordering thirty-day suspension 
 
- 9 - 
 
without pay where a judge violated five canons via a pattern of misconduct 
involving improper courtroom decorum and intemperate behavior); In re Shepard, 
217 So. 3d 71, 183-84 (Fla.) petition for cert. filed, No. 17-493 (U.S. Sept. 29, 
2017) (ordering ninety-day suspension without pay where a judge circulated a 
deceptive and misleading advertisement in her judicial campaign). 
In In re Contini, 205 So. 3d 1281, 1284-85 (Fla. 2016), this Court affirmed a 
public reprimand, but not suspension, where the judge engaged in ex parte 
communications with counsel and berated counsel in open court.  However, the 
judge in In re Contini admitted to the wrongdoing, accepted complete 
responsibility for his actions, and apologized with sincere remorse.  Id.  Here, 
unlike the judge in In re Contini, Judge Yacucci has not exhibited regret or remorse 
for his conduct.  See In re Davey, 645 So. 2d at 405 (“Where a judge admits 
wrongdoing and expresses remorse before the Commission, this candor reflects 
positively on his or her present fitness to hold office and can mitigate to some 
extent a finding of misconduct.”).  Judge Yacucci did not apologize nor cooperate 
with the JQC, but instead attempted to justify his actions during the JQC hearings 
as well as in his briefs to this Court.  
CONCLUSION 
Judge Philip James Yacucci, Jr., is hereby suspended without pay for thirty 
days from his duties as a county court judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit.  We 
 
- 10 - 
 
order Judge Yacucci to pay the costs of these proceedings, and we remand this case 
to the JQC for a determination of the amount of such costs.  We order Judge 
Yacucci to attend a judicial ethics course to be completed within one year.  We 
also command Judge Yacucci to appear before this Court for the administration of 
a public reprimand at a time to be set by the Clerk of this Court.  The effective date 
of the suspension shall be within fifteen days from the date of this opinion at the 
direction of the Chief Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit.  Once the effective 
date is determined, the Court Administrator for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit 
shall submit a personnel action request (PAR) form to the Personnel Office of the 
Office of State Courts Administrators for processing.  Absent an order from this 
Court, a motion for rehearing of this decision will not toll the effective date of the 
suspension. 
 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
LEWIS, J., concurs in result.  
PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which 
QUINCE, J., concurs.  
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
PARIENTE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I concur with the majority because I agree that Judge Yacucci violated the 
Code of Judicial Conduct throughout the course of an adversarial and contentious 
 
- 11 - 
 
professional relationship that escalated during a contested election between Judge 
Yacucci and attorney Stephen Smith.  I dissent in part because I conclude that a 
longer suspension of at least ninety days is warranted in light of the totality of 
Judge Yacucci’s conduct, which occurred over a period of years and was 
unbefitting of a judicial officer both in the courtroom and on the campaign trail.  I 
recognize that Judge Yacucci, first elected as a county court judge in 2002, has in 
many respects had an unblemished legal and judicial career, but we cannot and do 
not condone Judge Yacucci’s misconduct as found by the Judicial Qualifications 
Commission (“JQC”) and approved by this Court. 
Before the JQC and this Court, Judge Yacucci asserts that his conduct was 
motivated by “more important larger issues.”  He claims that his conduct was 
motivated by a concern to maintain the independence of the judiciary, which he 
asserts was under siege by the actions of attorney Smith, and his employer, the 
Ticket Clinic.  Specifically, Judge Yacucci alleges that attorney Smith engaged in 
an unethical campaign with the sole goal of obtaining Judge Yacucci’s blanket 
recusal from any of his cases following the campaign.  
But the conduct of attorney Smith is not before this Court, and Judge 
Yacucci’s actions in this case, as found by the JQC, show that Judge Yacucci 
failed to act in a “manner that promoted public confidence in the integrity and 
impartiality of the judiciary.”  See Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2(A).  Stating in a 
 
- 12 - 
 
televised interview in his courtroom that Smith “should not be a lawyer,” “should 
not be in a courtroom,” and is “truly a disgrace as a judicial candidate and really as 
a human being” is the type of quintessential conduct that stands contrary to the 
core principles espoused in our Code of Judicial Conduct.  That those comments 
followed a public altercation at a polling place where Smith claims that Judge 
Yacucci verbally and physically assaulted him only confirms that Judge Yacucci 
was conducting himself in a manner antithetical to the high standards of conduct 
expected of our judges.  
As the JQC found, “Judge Yacucci attempted to justify his conduct by resort 
to the ‘larger issues’ of judicial independence and its ostensible subversion by the 
Ticket Clinic.”   In re Judge Philip James Yacucci [Jr.], No. 16-496 (Fla. Jud. Qual. 
Comm’n June 29, 2017), at 22.  But as the JQC also observed, Canon 1 requires 
both judicial integrity and judicial independence.  The latter “does not offer judges 
the power to do as they please.”  Id. (quoting In re Eriksson, 36 So. 3d 580, 588 
(Fla. 2010)).  
In this case, the majority makes clear that “Judge Yacucci repeatedly 
violated his duty to be impartial and to disqualify himself from Smith’s cases,” and 
the “acrimonious relationship between Judge Yacucci and Smith, marked by 
lawsuits, a public altercation and televised disparagement, the jailing of Smith for 
contempt, judicial campaign disputes, unsolicited attempts to influence a petition 
 
- 13 - 
 
for writ of prohibition, and multiple refusals to disqualify himself, clearly 
displayed Judge Yacucci’s disregard for proper judicial conduct.”  Majority op. at 
7-8.  Moreover, “Judge Yacucci did not apologize nor cooperate with the JQC, but 
instead attempted to justify his actions during the JQC hearings as well as in his 
briefs to this Court.”  Majority op. at 9.  Accordingly, the majority properly 
concluded and Judge Yacucci conceded that he violated the Code of Judicial 
Conduct. 
 
As the JQC observed, a judge is “not a knight-errant, roaming at will in 
pursuit of his own ideal[s].”  Yacucci, No. 16-496 (Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm’n June 
29, 2017), at 22 (quoting Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 
(1921)).  Apparently Judge Yacucci also claimed to be motivated by the lack of an 
adequate response from The Florida Bar to his complaint about attorney Smith.  Of 
course, as the JQC observed: 
The Florida Bar has jurisdiction to investigate and discipline 
lawyers for their conduct in court and during judicial campaigns. 
Judge Yacucci’s dissatisfaction with the Florida Bar, and perceived 
disparity between judges and judicial candidates during a contentious 
election, did not justify personal efforts to punish Mr. Smith and his 
employer by other means, including improper comments about their 
character on television or in the appellate court. 
 
Id. 
Most assuredly, if an attorney undertook the type of cumulative actions as 
occurred here, this Court would have imposed a suspension longer than thirty days.  
 
- 14 - 
 
Just as we expect attorneys to treat judges with respect, judges have an obligation 
to treat attorneys with respect.  If attorneys act improperly, there are procedures 
judges can properly follow to address a contempt of court.  As the JQC observed: 
Judge Yacucci is an experienced lawyer and judge, who made 
what he perceived to be a valiant effort to rid St. Lucie County of 
attempts “to intimidate judges with veiled threats” of future judicial 
challenges.  “His zealous pursuit of a pure society apparently clouded 
his ability to impartially adjudicate the matters before him.  His 
motives are acceptable, but his methods are not.”  [In re] Graham, 620 
So. 2d [1273,] 1275 [(Fla. 1993)]. 
 
Id. at 23. 
Judge Yacucci’s cumulative misconduct in this case diminished the public’s 
perception of the judiciary and, by engaging in this conduct, Judge Yacucci failed 
to uphold the integrity and independence of the judicial office.  If the JQC’s 
unrefuted findings of misconduct did not cause Judge Yacucci to reflect upon the 
totality of his actions, I am skeptical that this Court requiring Judge Yacucci to 
take a judicial ethics course will have its desired effect.  See majority op. at 1.  For 
all of these reasons, I would conclude that the conduct in this case warrants, at 
minimum, a ninety-day suspension.1   
                                          
 
 
1.  See, e.g., In re Shepard, 217 So. 3d 71, 74 (Fla. 2017) (holding that a 
ninety-day suspension without pay, public reprimand, and costs, was appropriate 
where judge made an intentionally deceptive campaign ad misrepresenting an 
endorsement from a local newspaper and failed to take responsibility for her 
conduct through either an apology or acknowledgement of wrongdoing); In re 
Decker, 212 So. 3d 291, 309 (Fla. 2017) (holding that discipline including a six-
month suspension, public reprimand, and costs, was appropriate where misconduct 
 
- 15 - 
 
Accordingly, I concur with the majority with respect to its findings 
regarding Judge Yacucci’s conduct but dissent as to the majority’s imposition of 
only a thirty-day suspension without pay and would impose a suspension of at least 
ninety days.   
QUINCE, J., concurs. 
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission 
 
Honorable Kerry I. Evander, Chair, Honorable Robert Morris, Past Chair, Michael 
Louis Schneider, Executive Director and General Counsel, and Alexander John 
Williams, Special Counsel and Assistant General Counsel, Judicial Qualifications 
Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; and Lauri Waldman Ross of Ross & Girten, 
Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, 
Miami, Florida, 
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
Robert J. Watson of Robert J. Watson, P.A., Stuart, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge Philip Yacucci, Jr., Respondent 
 
 
 
                                          
 
included campaign violations, conflict of interest in representation of clients, and 
lying to the court and opposing counsel).