Title: Inquiry Concerning Judge, No. 98-57, Re: Reginald A. Richardson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC93-954
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC93954
____________
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 98-57,
RE:    REGINALD A. RICHARDSON
[June 1, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review findings and recommendations of the Florida Judicial
Qualifications Commission (JQC) recommending that Judge Reginald A.
Richardson be publicly reprimanded for judicial misconduct.  Judge Richardson
admits to the misconduct and stipulates that he will not contest this
recommendation.  We have jurisdiction.  Art. V, § 12, Fla. Const.
In the stipulation entered into between Judge Richardson and the JQC, Judge
Richardson did not contest the findings and recommendations made by the
Investigative Panel of the JQC which are as follows:
1.    On February 26, 1998, Reginald Richardson was arrested on a
charge of solicitation for prostitution, involving an undercover police
officer acting as a prostitute decoy.
-2-
2.    Judge Richardson was subsequently acquitted by the jury of the
solicitation charge on which the arrest was based.
3.    Upon Judge Richardson’s arrival at the police command post
following his arrest, Judge Richardson made several comments,
including the following, among others:
a.  Judge Richardson identified himself as a County      
Court Judge.
b.  When an officer mentioned that the Chief of Police      
was going to be called, Judge Richardson requested      
permission to speak directly to the Chief, stating that      
he could “explain everything.”
c.  In further conversations with the officers, Judge      
Richardson stated he was “pro police” and that the      
President of the Dade County Police Benevolent      
Association had run the campaign for judge.
d.  Having told the police that he had done nothing      
wrong, it was the intention of Judge Richardson in      
making these comments to the police (¶ a-c), that the      
police officers be made aware of his innocence and      
his status as a county court judge and therefore not      
arrest him.
This behavior constitutes conduct unbecoming a member of the
judiciary.  The Commission regards a pattern and practice of
inappropriate comments designed to obtain favored treatment and to
avoid due process of the law, such as those made by the Judge, to be
very serious because they raise basic questions of personal and
professional integrity and reflect adversely on the justice system so far
as the public and litigants are concerned.
However, more serious discipline in the opinion of the
-3-
Investigative Panel is not warranted in view of the acknowledgment by
Judge Richardson of the impropriety of his conduct, and his assurances
that the conduct will be remedied voluntarily and never repeated.  The
Investigative Panel believes the Judge to be sincere in his announced
recognition of the nature and extent of his mistakes and in his regret
over these events.  The Investigative Panel accordingly concludes that
the interests of Justice and the public welfare are adequately served by
the administration of a public reprimand as recommended.
We agree with the JQC and find that Judge Richardson’s behavior constituted
conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary.  Canon 2(b) of the Code of Judicial
Conduct states that “[a] judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to
advance the private interests of the judge or others.”  That is clearly what Judge
Richardson attempted to do in this instance.  Using the prestige of judicial office to
advance one’s own interest undermines the very prestige and respect that is being
traded upon and, inevitably, erodes public confidence in the judiciary.  See In re
Fogan, 646 So. 2d 191, 194 (Fla. 1994).  Such acts cannot be tolerated.
Therefore, we accept the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications
Commission and in accordance with the policy recently announced in In re Frank,
25 Fla. L. Weekly S147 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000), we hereby command Judge Reginald
A. Richardson to appear before this Court at 9 a.m. on August 29, 2000, for the
administration of a public reprimand for the actions noted above.
It is so ordered.
-4-
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ, concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding - Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission
Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, and Judy S.
Hoyer, Special Counsel of James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A., Tampa,
Florida,
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner
Jayne C. Weintraub, Miami, Florida, and Benedict P. Kuehne of Sale & Kuehne,
P.A., Miami, Florida,
for Respondent