Title: Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 2023-029 re: Hon. Casey L. Woolsey
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC2023-1706
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: June 20, 2024

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