Title: Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No.97-178, Re: Bonnie S. Newton
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC92-508
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 11, 2000

1   At the time these proceedings began, Bonnie S. Newton was a circuit court judge in the
Sixth Judicial Circuit.  She subsequently lost her bid for reelection and is not presently a judge in this
state.
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC92508
____________
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 97-178, 
RE:  BONNIE S. NEWTON
[May 11, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications
Commission (JQC) that Judge Bonnie S. Newton1 be disciplined.  We have
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const.  The JQC and Judge Newton have
stipulated to recommending a public reprimand for Judge Newton’s misconduct.  
The Investigative Panel’s Findings of Fact and Recommendation of Discipline
were as follows:
1.  Judge Newton was routinely abusive,
demeaning, and sarcastic to litigants, witnesses and
-2-
attorneys.  In 1995, Judge Newton was counseled by a
member of the Judicial Qualifications Commission to
correct this abusive behavior.  Despite this counseling,
Judge Newton continued to be abrupt, sarcastic, rude,
demeaning, and even vengeful to those who appeared
before her.
2.  In December 1996, Judge Newton’s former
judicial assistant, Karen Sella, began working for
Attorney Diana Beard.  After this time, Judge Newton
became abusive and sarcastic toward Attorney Beard to
the extent that Attorney Beard requested a blanket recusal
of Judge Newton from all of her cases.  Before Ms. Sella
began working for Attorney Beard, Judge Newton was
cordial to her at Bar functions and Family Law related
meetings.  After, Judge Newton refused to acknowledge
or speak to Attorney Beard outside the courtroom.
3.  In August of 1997, Judge Newton became angry
because Attorney Liz Richards had filed a motion for
recusal disclosing that Judge Newton had ordered an in-
chambers settlement conference.  Thereafter, Judge
Newton became abusive to Attorney Richards in court
proceedings to the point that one of Richards’ clients
remarked:  “My God, that judge hates you.”  When
Richards approached Judge Newton to clear the air, Judge
Newton stated to her that she had made a “very serious
error in judgment” and that “Judge Newton could not trust
her anymore,” or words to that effect.  Judge Newton
further told Attorney Richards that “judges can make or
break attorneys” and that “clients come and go, but you
have to work with the same judges year in and year out. 
You better learn who your friends are.”  When Richards
asked Judge Newton if Judge Newton intended to allow
or cause this incident to have a lasting effect on her
career, Judge Newton stated words to the effect that: 
“Things have a way of getting out.”  Afterwards, Judge
Newton refused to acknowledge or speak to Attorney
Richards outside the courtroom.  
-3-
4.  In pretrial conferences where no court reporter
was present, Judge Newton was routinely rude and
sarcastic to attorneys who appeared before her. 
5.  Approximately five years ago, Attorney
Catherine M. Catlin appeared before Judge Newton at a
pretrial hearing wearing pants.  After the hearing, Judge
Newton called Attorney Catlin to the bench and
admonished her not to wear pants in Judge Newton’s
courtroom.  Attorney Catlin advised Judge Newton that
she had a leg deformity and that it was inappropriate to
comment on an attorney’s dress pursuant to the Supreme
Court/Florida Bar Gender Bias Study and
Recommendations.  After this incident, Judge Newton
was rude and abusive to Attorney Catlin and her clients. 
As a result of Judge Newton’s conduct and attitude
toward Attorney Catlin, Attorney Catlin routinely advised
her clients that they should consider retaining another
lawyer if Judge Newton was assigned to the client’s case.
6.  In In re: Marriage of Berg v. Berg, circuit civil
no. 95-4655-FD-024, Judge Newton was abusive,
intimidating, and demeaning to witnesses and parties,
including sarcastically calling witness Mary Robinson a
high school “dropout” when in fact she had received her
GED.
7.  In In re: Marriage of Anderson v. Balas, circuit
civil  no. 86-001678-FD-24, Judge Newton was abusive,
demeaning and intimidating to witnesses and parties.  This
included telling the former wife on more than one
occasion, who was appearing pro se, that “she’d better be
prepared, because she was not going to get by on her
good looks.”  When the former wife stated that she was
not an attorney but was trying the best she could, Judge
Newton stated:  “That is not good enough” or words to
that effect. 
8.  In In re: Interest of Minor Child, circuit civil no.
1368988, petition no. 93006870-FD-024, Judge Newton
was abusive, demeaning, and intimidating to witnesses
-4-
and parties.  This included making inappropriate and
sarcastic facial expressions and gestures and inappropriate
comments.  In one such comment, Judge Newton
admonished a court-appointed guardian ad litem, who was
responding to a question asked by Judge Newton:  “Don’t
you ever interrupt me while I am speaking.”
9.  In In re: Custody of Minor Children, circuit civil
no. 98-2849-FD-24, Judge Newton was abusive,
demeaning, and intimidating to witnesses, parties and
attorneys.  This included starting a criminal contempt
hearing 30  minutes before its noticed starting time.  At
this hearing, Judge Newton had the wife appear pro se
notwithstanding that Judge Newton was aware that she
was represented by Attorney Karen McHugh.  When Ms.
McHugh appeared 10 minutes before the hearing was
noticed to begin, Judge Newton had already begun to
announce her ruling from the bench.  Judge Newton
refused to hear Ms. McHugh even though she requested to
be heard.  When Ms. McHugh inquired as to the basis of
Judge Newton[’s] ruling, Judge Newton sarcastically
responded:  “Why don’t you step outside and ask
opposing counsel” or words to that effect.
10.  While sitting as a judge in Rhodes v. Rhodes,
circuit civil no. 95-9015-FD-24, Judge Newton sua sponte
ordered the attorneys for both parties to an “unofficial”
meeting in her chambers.  No formal notice of the meeting
was made in the clerk’s records and Judge Newton
instructed the attorneys not to bring or inform their clients
of the meeting.
11.  At this meeting, Judge Newton demanded that
the attorneys settle the case on terms which Judge Newton
outlined and asked them to “sell” the settlement to their
clients.  When the attorney for the wife, Liz Richards,
refused, Judge Newton became angry and slammed
papers on her desk.  Judge Newton then ordered the
parties not to discuss the meeting with their clients or
even to disclose the fact that the meeting took place. 
2   Because former Judge Bonnie S. Newton is no longer a member of the judiciary, we find
it unnecessary to issue an in-person public reprimand pursuant to our policy articulated in In re Frank,
25 Fla. L. Weekly S147 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000).
-5-
Judge Newton also ordered the attorneys to hand Judge
Newton their notes.  The attorney for the husband
complied and Judge Newton destroyed his notes.  The
attorney for the wife refused.  Judge Newton then stated
words to the effect:  “Ms. Richards, you don’t understand
the way it is going to be.  I am ordering you to give me
your notes.”  Judge Newton then destroyed these notes.
12.  After the meeting, Attorney Richards moved to
have Judge Newton recused from the case.  After that
time, Judge Newton became abusive to Attorney Richards
and her clients in other cases.
The panel recommended that Judge Newton be disciplined by a public
reprimand.  Pertinent factors in selecting this discipline include Judge Newton’s
agreement to plead guilty to all of the JQC’s formal charges and the fact that Judge
Newton was defeated in the last election and is therefore no longer presiding on the
bench.  We agree with the panel’s recommendation.  Accordingly, the publication of
this opinion serves as the public reprimand2 for former Judge Bonnie S. Newton.
It is so ordered.
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
-6-
Miette K. Burnstein, Chair, and John Beranek, Counsel to the Hearing Panel,
Tallahassee, Florida, and Theodore C. Eastmoore  of Matthews, Hutton &
Eastmoore, Sarasota, Florida, Special Counsel,
for the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner
Scott K. Tozian of Smith and Tozian, P.A., Tampa, Florida,
for Respondent