Title: Inquiry Concerning Judge Robin C. Lemonidis
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC19-1302
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 14, 2019

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC19-1302 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 19-101 & NO. 19-175 RE: ROBIN  
C. LEMONIDIS. 
 
November 14, 2019 
 
PER CURIAM. 
In this case, we review the findings and recommendation of the Florida 
Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) concerning misconduct by Judge Robin 
C. Lemonidis of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, as well as a stipulation entered 
into by Judge Lemonidis and the JQC.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, Fla. 
Const.  For the reasons explained below, we accept the stipulation and approve the 
JQC’s findings and recommended sanctions. 
BACKGROUND 
This case stems from Judge Lemonidis’s conduct in two incidents that 
occurred in proceedings related to two different matters: State v. Francis, 
052016CF012745AXXXXX, and State v. Welch, 052000CF044961AXXXXX.  
The first incident occurred during the Francis trial.  In response to defense 
 
- 2 - 
counsel’s violation of courtroom rules—specifically, his failure to “address[] all 
participants by their surname[s]”—Judge Lemonidis employed an “adversarial 
tone and demeanor when” speaking to “the defendant and his attorney.”  On at 
least five separate occasions, “Judge Lemonidis repeatedly and loudly struck her 
gavel” while admonishing defense counsel for using only the defendant’s first 
name.  Early in the proceedings, Judge Lemonidis was warned that a juror had 
been overheard “commenting about [her] treatment of the defense counsel.”  But 
she continued to reprimand defense counsel in full view of the jury, often using 
“facial expressions and a tone of voice” that indicated her frustration.  Judge 
Lemonidis behaved similarly in her interactions with witnesses and others involved 
in the proceedings, “at times appearing openly annoyed . . . by the person she was 
addressing.”   
The second incident occurred as “Judge Lemonidis presided over a retrial of 
the penalty phase” in Welch.  The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to two 
counts of first-degree murder, for which the State sought the death penalty.  When 
the jury declined to recommend the death penalty, Judge Lemonidis held a 
sentencing hearing. 
During the hearing, Judge Lemonidis listened to impact statements from the 
victims’ family members before “impos[ing] the legally required life sentences.”  
Judge Lemonidis made the following remarks during the sentencing colloquy: 
 
- 3 - 
And uh sir, I cannot disagree with a single thing that [the victim’s 
family member] said and I’m glad she said it. 
 . . . . 
[Other impact speakers] are far more gracious soul[s] than a 
person like you deserves.  And that is something you’re going to get 
to ponder for the rest of your miserable life.  There is a Chinese 
proverb, do good, reap good, do evil, reap evil—which section will 
you sit in sir?  There’s no doubt in my mind.  And I tend to agree that 
the outcome might have been different had this been three years 
ago. . . .  
 . . . . 
I hope you see the [victims’] faces on every single face you see.  
You have—The collateral damage that you have caused, sir, is 
immeasurable and your life is—is not worthy of what you have done 
to these people.  I do hope you do fight for your life every minute of 
every day.  And that would be the only reason that I would hope your 
life is any longer than six weeks.   
 
 
Resulting from her conduct in the Francis and Welch proceedings, the JQC 
served an Amended Notice of Investigation on Judge Lemonidis.  The JQC held an 
investigative hearing on May 24, 2019, at which Judge Lemonidis appeared with 
counsel and testified under oath.  On August 1, 2019, the JQC formally charged 
Judge Lemonidis with violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.  In its Amended 
Findings and Recommendation of Discipline, the JQC determined that Judge 
Lemonidis violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), and 3B(5),1 and proposed that a public 
                                          
 
 
1.  Canon 1 provides: 
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to 
justice in our society.  A judge should participate in establishing, 
maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall 
personally observe those standards so that the integrity and 
 
- 4 - 
reprimand and continued participation in stress management counseling were the 
appropriate sanctions.  The parties also executed a stipulation, in which Judge 
Lemonidis admitted to the conduct, agreed that she violated the Code of Judicial 
Conduct, and accepted the recommended discipline. 
REVIEW OF THE JQC’S FINDINGS 
This “[C]ourt may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the” JQC.  Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.  
We “review[] the findings of the JQC to determine whether the alleged violations 
are supported by clear and convincing evidence.”  In re White-Labora, 257 So. 3d 
367, 369 (Fla. 2018) (quoting In re Holder, 195 So. 3d 1133, 1137 (Fla. 2016)).  
                                          
 
independence of the judiciary may be preserved.  The provisions of 
this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.   
Canon 2A provides: 
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.  
Canon 3B(4) provides, in pertinent part: 
A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, 
jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an 
official capacity . . . . 
Canon 3B(5) provides, in pertinent part: 
A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.  
A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or 
conduct manifest bias or prejudice . . . . 
 
- 5 - 
When the respondent “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.”  Id. (quoting In re Holder, 195 So. 
3d at 1137).  We reach that conclusion in this case. 
Judge Lemonidis does not contest the factual allegations regarding her 
conduct, and concedes that her behavior “was inappropriate, intemperate, and 
violated the Canons.”  Based on her admissions and the JQC’s findings, we agree 
that Judge Lemonidis failed to establish, maintain, and enforce the highest standard 
of conduct (Canon 1); did not promote public confidence in the integrity and 
impartiality of the judiciary (Canon 2A); was not patient, dignified, and courteous 
to litigants and lawyers (Canon 3B(4)); and neglected to perform her judicial duties 
without evidencing bias or prejudice (Canon 3B(5)). 
Like the JQC, we are particularly concerned by “Judge Lemonidis’[s] failure 
to exercise self-control” during the Francis trial after she was informed that a juror 
had commented on her perceived dislike of defense counsel.  Such an allegation 
should have made Judge Lemonidis aware of the need to “regulat[e] her own 
conduct” to preserve the appearance of impartiality.  We further agree that Judge 
Lemonidis’s comments during the Welch sentencing hearing—especially those 
articulating a desire to see the defendant “fight for [his] life” or die within the next 
six weeks—compromised the integrity of the judiciary.  As observed by the JQC, 
 
- 6 - 
“it is essential” that judges refrain from “degrad[ing] the solemnity of proceedings 
by casting insults and abuse upon litigants.” 
REVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE 
We review the JQC’s “recommendation of discipline to determine ‘whether 
it should be approved or whether other discipline is appropriate.’ ”  In re Decker, 
212 So. 3d 291, 300-01 (Fla. 2017) (quoting In re Renke, 933 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla. 
2006)).  Here, the JQC recommends that Judge Lemonidis receive a public 
reprimand and further proposes that she “continue to participate in a course of 
stress management counseling.”  Because we have imposed comparable sanctions 
in similar cases, we approve the JQC’s recommendation.  See, e.g., In re Schapiro, 
845 So. 2d 170, 174 (Fla. 2003) (ordering a public reprimand with conditions, 
including participation in a psychological or behavioral treatment program, for a 
judge who engaged in a pattern of rude and intemperate behavior). 
CONCLUSION 
We conclude that the JQC’s findings are supported by clear and convincing 
evidence, and we approve both the JQC’s recommended discipline and the 
stipulation entered into by Judge Lemonidis and the JQC.  Accordingly, we hereby 
command Judge Robin C. Lemonidis to appear before this Court for the 
 
- 7 - 
administration of a public reprimand at a time to be established by the Clerk of this 
Court. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and 
MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission 
 
Honorable Krista Marx, Chair, and Alexander J. Williams, General Counsel, 
Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, Florida;  
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
Warren Lindsey of Lindsey & Ferry, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge Robin Lemonidis, Respondent