Title: Inquiry Concerning Judge Susan B. Flood
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC14-1364
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 6, 2014

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC14-1364 
 
____________ 
 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 13-344 
RE: SUSAN B. FLOOD. 
 
[November 6, 2014] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
 
In this case, we review the findings and recommendation of discipline of the 
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), recommending that Judge 
Susan B. Flood, Polk County Judge, receive the sanction of a public reprimand for 
violating Canons 1 and 2A of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  We have 
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const.  For the reasons that follow, we approve 
the JQC’s findings and recommendation of discipline. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
This action stems from charges filed against Judge Flood arising out of an 
inappropriate relationship with her bailiff, over whom she exercised supervisory 
authority.  The JQC’s Notice of Formal Charges filed against Judge Flood 
recognized that a judge exercises “supervisory control” over her bailiff and alleged 
 
 
- 2 - 
that Judge Flood had a “friendship” with her bailiff that became so close that it 
created an “appearance of impropriety.” 
Ultimately, after Judge Flood testified before the Investigative Panel of the 
JQC, Judge Flood and the JQC entered into a stipulation, in which Judge Flood 
admitted to “violations of the Judicial Canons” based on “a relationship between 
the Judge and an individual over whom she had supervisory control.”  As is 
outlined in the JQC’s Notice of Formal Charges and accepted in the stipulation by 
Judge Flood, she “entered into an inappropriate relationship with her bailiff,” 
which was described as a “friendship” that “went beyond the fraternization that 
normally occurs in a professional workplace context.”  
The stipulation recites that, during the time Judge Flood maintained her 
relationship with her bailiff, “some judicial colleagues approached her with 
concerns over the level of friendship with someone over whom she exercised 
supervisory authority.”  In the stipulation, Judge Flood accepts “full responsibility” 
for her wrongdoing and acknowledges that such conduct should not have occurred.  
The stipulation states that Judge Flood “regrets and apologizes for her actions” and 
“has taken steps to ensure that there is no reoccurrence.”  The stipulation also notes 
Judge Flood’s unblemished record as a county judge and her regular service as an 
acting circuit judge and concludes that the misconduct was an isolated incident and 
does not demonstrate an unfitness for office.   
 
 
- 3 - 
The stipulation incorporates the JQC’s findings and recommendation of 
discipline, in which the JQC concluded that Judge Flood violated Canons 1 and 2A 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Considering Judge Flood’s responsiveness, 
candor, and cooperation with its inquiries, the JQC recommended a public 
reprimand as the appropriate sanction for these violations. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
Article V, section 12, of the Florida Constitution, provides that in cases of 
judicial misconduct, this Court “may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part 
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the [JQC] and it may order that 
the . . . judge be subjected to appropriate discipline.”  Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. 
Const.  “This Court reviews the findings of the JQC to determine whether the 
alleged violations are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and reviews the 
recommended discipline to determine whether it should be approved.”  In re 
Woodard, 919 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2006).  “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 Renke, 933 So. 2d 482, 493 (Fla. 2006) (citing In re Angel, 867 So. 
2d 379, 382 (Fla. 2004)).   
In its findings and recommendation of discipline, the JQC found that Judge 
Flood’s conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A, which require a judge to act at all times 
 
 
- 4 - 
in a manner that upholds the integrity of the judiciary and to avoid the appearance 
of impropriety.  Canon 1 states: “A judge should participate in establishing, 
maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe 
those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be 
preserved.”  Canon 2A states: “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.” 
We have held that “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).  In this case, Judge Flood admitted to the alleged wrongdoing, and 
upon review, we determine that the JQC’s findings are supported by clear and 
convincing evidence.  Because we conclude that the findings of the JQC are 
supported by clear and convincing evidence, we give the findings “persuasive 
force and great weight” in our consideration of the JQC’s recommended discipline.  
In re Maloney, 916 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 2005).  
 The JQC concluded that Judge Flood’s conduct was an isolated incident and 
does not demonstrate an unfitness for office.  Judge Flood recognized the 
inappropriateness of her behavior, accepted full responsibility, and apologized for 
her actions.  Judge Flood further recognized that “her actions have the effect of 
 
 
- 5 - 
lessening the public’s confidence in the judiciary.”  In addition, not only has Judge 
Flood accepted “full responsibility for her actions that put her in violation of 
Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct,” but she “has taken steps to 
ensure that there is no reoccurrence of situations similar” to what occurred in this 
case. 
We agree that Judge Flood’s conduct in having an “inappropriate 
relationship” with her bailiff, over whom she exercised supervisory authority, was 
clearly unacceptable.  While we have not been provided with the details of this 
“inappropriate relationship,” we accept the characterization by the JQC and Judge 
Flood’s own stipulation that this relationship went beyond the “fraternization that 
normally occurs in a professional workplace.”  We agree that such improper 
conduct in the workplace is of greater concern when engaged in by judges, who are 
held to the high standards of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 
We recognize, however, that in this case the misconduct was an isolated 
incident in an otherwise exemplary career as a judge.  Judge Flood has admitted 
her wrongdoing, in particular that “her actions have the effect of lessening the 
public’s confidence in the judiciary,” and she has vowed that such misconduct will 
not be repeated.  For all these reasons, we accept the JQC’s recommendation of a 
public reprimand.  Existing precedent suggests that a public reprimand is 
appropriate under these circumstances.  See, e.g., In re Adams, 932 So. 2d 1025, 
 
 
- 6 - 
1027-28 (Fla. 2006) (approving public reprimand for a judge who admitted to 
having an inappropriate relationship with an attorney who was practicing before 
him; agreed that such conduct violated Canons 1, 2, and 3; expressed remorse; and 
apologized). 
In this instance, we agree with the JQC’s recommendation that, “in the 
interests of justice, the public welfare and sound judicial administration will be 
well served” by a public reprimand of Judge Flood.  Judge Flood does not contest 
this recommendation of discipline. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
For all these reasons, we conclude that there is clear and convincing 
evidence in support of the JQC’s findings of fact as to both violations of the Code 
of Judicial Conduct, and we approve the stipulation entered into by Judge Flood 
and the JQC.  Accordingly, we hereby command Judge Susan B. Flood to appear 
before this Court for the administration of a public reprimand at a time to be 
established by the Clerk of this Court. 
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 
 
 
- 7 - 
Ricardo Morales, III, Chair, and Michael Louis Schneider, General Counsel, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
John Wesley Frost, II of Frost Van den Boom, P.A., Bartow, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge Susan B. Flood, Respondent