Title: Inquiry Concerning Judge Jacqueline Schwartz
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC15-312
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: September 10, 2015

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC15-312 
____________ 
 
 
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NOS. 14-299, 14-415  
RE: JACQUELINE SCHWARTZ. 
 
[September 10, 2015] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
In this case, we review the revised consent judgment entered into by the 
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) and Eleventh Judicial Circuit 
Judge Jacqueline Schwartz.  The revised consent judgment imposes the following 
sanctions upon Judge Schwartz: a public reprimand before this Court, a thirty-day 
suspension without pay, a requirement that she write a letter of apology, and a 
$10,000 fine.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const.  For the reasons 
that follow, we approve the revised consent judgment.   
I.  BACKGROUND 
On February 19, 2015, the JQC filed in this Court a Notice of Formal 
Charges charging Judge Schwartz with violations of Canons 1, 2A, 3B(8), 4A(2), 
 
- 2 - 
4A(3), and 7A(3)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The underlying 
circumstances of these violations are as follows. 
The first incident occurred on or about June 2, 2014.  Upon seeing an 
opponent’s campaign sign in a convenience store, Judge Schwartz asked to speak 
with the store’s owner.  She was told that the owner, Mr. Firas Hussain, was not 
there but that he might be back later that day or the next day. 
That night, Judge Schwartz returned to the convenience store to speak with 
Mr. Hussain and to request that he display her campaign sign.  When Mr. Hussain 
refused to display Judge Schwartz’s campaign sign, she lost her temper.  Before 
leaving the store, Judge Schwartz used profanity and threatened to sue                  
Mr. Hussain.  
In the second incident, while presiding over a case, Judge Schwartz wrote 
notes on pages of scrap paper and on original documents contained in the case’s 
court file.  One of the parties reviewed the court file and photocopied the judge’s 
notes.  Later, that party requested a certified copy of the pages that contained the 
notes.  Upon receiving the party’s request, Judge Schwartz instructed her bailiff to 
remove those pages from the court file.  After reviewing the uncertified copies of 
Judge Schwartz’s notes, the party filed a motion to disqualify her from the case.  
Judge Schwartz denied the motion.  Judge Schwartz testified that she instructed her 
 
- 3 - 
bailiff to remove the pages containing her notes from the court file and place them 
in an envelope.  The missing pages were never found. 
Judge Schwartz entered into a Stipulation with the JQC, filed in this Court 
on February 19, 2015.  Judge Schwartz admitted her misconduct and stipulated to 
the following sanctions: a public reprimand before this Court and a letter of 
apology to Mr. Hussain.  The JQC advised the Court through the Stipulation that 
the “interest of justice and sound judicial administration is best served by entering 
into the Stipulation.”   
However, upon review of the charges and the terms of the Stipulation, this 
Court concluded that the terms of the Stipulation were inadequate to address the 
serious violations committed by Judge Schwartz.  Consequently, on April 29, 
2015, this Court issued an order that rejected the parties’ Stipulation.  The order 
stated as follows:   
Upon consideration of the Judicial Qualifications 
Commission’s Findings and Recommendation of Discipline and the 
parties’ Stipulation, the Court rejects the Stipulation and disapproves 
the proposed sanctions.  In addition to the public reprimand and letter 
of apology agreed to in the Stipulation, the Court would impose a 
thirty-day suspension without pay and a $10,000 fine.  Should the 
parties agree to these terms, a revised consent judgment shall be filed 
with the Court within thirty days of the date of this order.   
If the parties do not agree to these terms, the parties must 
inform the Court within thirty days that they have not reached an 
agreement.  In that event, this case (SC15-312) will be returned for a 
hearing before the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. 
 
 
- 4 - 
On May 8, 2015, Judge Schwartz and the JQC timely filed a revised consent 
judgment in which the parties agreed to the terms outlined in the April 29, 2015, 
order.  Judge Schwartz waived her right to further hearings, subject to this Court’s 
approval of the revised consent judgment.   
II.  ANALYSIS 
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.”  See, e.g., In re Sheehan, 139 So. 3d 290, 
291-92 (Fla. 2014) (quoting 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 Flood, 150 So. 3d 1097, 1098 
(Fla. 2014) (quoting 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.”  Id. (quoting In re Renke, 933 So. 2d 482, 493 (Fla. 2006)). 
The JQC found that Judge Schwartz’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 
3B(8), 4A(2), 4A(3), and 7A(3)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Canon 1 
states: “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our 
society.  A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing 
 
- 5 - 
high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the 
integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.”  Fla. Code of Jud. 
Conduct, Canon 1.  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.”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A.  
Canon 3B(8) states: “A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, 
efficiently, and fairly.”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(8).  Canon 4A(2) 
states: “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s quasi-judicial activities so that they 
do not . . . undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.”  Fla. 
Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 4A(2).  Canon 4A(3) states:  “A judge shall conduct 
all of the judge’s quasi-judicial activities so that they do not . . .  demean the 
judicial office.”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 4A(3).  Canon 7A(3)(b) states: 
“A candidate for judicial office . . . shall maintain the dignity appropriate to 
judicial office and act in a manner consistent with the impartiality, integrity, and 
independence of the judiciary. . . .”  Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 7A(3)(b).   
Campaign Sign Confrontation 
While this Court has repeatedly concluded that “cases involving a judge’s 
rude or intemperate behavior in open court” are subject to discipline, see In re 
Wood, 720 So. 2d 506, 509 (Fla. 1998), a judge retains a similar obligation to 
maintain high standards of conduct when outside of the courtroom.  Judge 
 
- 6 - 
Schwartz’s rude and intemperate interaction with Mr. Hussain during the course of 
her judicial election campaign failed to enforce the high standards of conduct 
expected of a judicial officer.  Although in In re Wood and similar cases involving 
issues of rude or intemperate behavior this Court has held that a public reprimand 
was a sufficient sanction, we observe that Judge Schwartz’s behavior is not limited 
to this isolated incident.        
Improper Use of Authority 
The JQC also found and Judge Schwartz admitted that she used her bailiff to 
permanently remove her notes from a court file, including those that were written 
on original documents contained therein.  This Court addressed a situation where a 
judge engaged in an improper use of authority in In re Holloway, 832 So. 2d 716 
(Fla. 2002).  In In re Holloway, Judge Holloway was a witness in a contested 
custody dispute.  Id. at 717.  Judge Holloway engaged in improper ex parte 
communication with the assigned judge, and during depositions in the case, she 
provided false or misleading statements about her contact with that judge and with 
law enforcement.  Id. at 718-19; 727.  Subsequent to the depositions, Judge 
Holloway executed a “misleading, vague, incomplete, [and] inaccurate” errata 
sheet that “intended to keep secret [her] inappropriate contact with [the assigned 
 
- 7 - 
judge].”  Id. at 720.1  This Court rejected Judge Holloway’s argument that a public 
reprimand alone was the appropriate sanction, and it additionally ordered a thirty-
day unpaid suspension and the payment of costs.   
Appropriate Sanction 
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 Flood, 150 So. 3d at 1098 
(quoting In re Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334, 337 (Fla. 2005)).  Where the JQC’s findings 
are supported by clear and convincing evidence, such findings are entitled to 
“persuasive force and great weight” in our consideration of the JQC’s 
recommended discipline.  Id. (quoting In re Maloney, 916 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 
2005)).   
In its findings and recommendations, the JQC “concluded that [Judge 
Schwartz’s] obscene remarks, discourteous behavior, and improper removal of 
official court documents, undermined the judge’s integrity, and demeaned the 
judicial office she holds.”  Consistent with these findings, Judge Schwartz admitted 
her wrongful actions that resulted in multiple violations of the Code of Judicial 
                                          
 
 
1.  Additionally, in a separate proceeding, Judge Holloway entered into a 
courtroom and asked the presiding judge if her brother’s hearing could be handled 
out of turn so that he could catch a plane.  Id.   
 
- 8 - 
Conduct.  Thus, we conclude that the JQC’s findings are supported by clear and 
convincing evidence.   
We have considered that Judge Schwartz “has admitted the foregoing, 
accepts full responsibility, and acknowledges that such conduct should not have 
occurred.”   However, the terms of the Stipulation entered into by the JQC and 
Judge Schwartz were simply insufficient to address the severity of Judge 
Schwartz’s misconduct and necessitated this Court’s order dated April 29, 2015.  
Now, the JQC and Judge Schwartz having entered into a revised consent judgment 
with terms more appropriate to address the acts of misconduct in this case, we 
approve the terms of the revised consent judgment imposing a public reprimand 
before this Court, a thirty-day suspension without pay, a letter of apology to 
Mr. Hussain, and a $10,000 fine.     
                                 III.  CONCLUSION 
In summary, we accept the revised consent judgment entered into by Judge 
Jacqueline Schwartz and the JQC.  Accordingly, we hereby command Judge 
Jacqueline Schwartz to appear before this Court for the administration of a public 
reprimand at a time to be established by the Clerk of this Court.  We further 
approve the imposition of a thirty-day suspension without pay, a letter of apology 
to Mr. Hussain, and a $10,000 fine.   
It is so ordered.  
 
- 9 - 
 
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 
 
Ricardo Morales, III, Chair, Michael Louis Schneider, Executive Director, and 
Alexander John Williams, General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner 
 
Jeffrey Evan Feiler, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Judge Jaqueline Schwartz, Respondent