Opinion ID: 1680174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misconduct During Judicial Campaign

Text: Judge Woodard was charged in Counts I and V with violating Canons 1, 2, and 3, which set forth the ethics rules governing judges in this state. These charges relate to Judge Woodard's misconduct during his judicial campaign in 2004. Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct broadly prohibit conduct unbecoming a judicial officer. Diaz, 908 So.2d at 337-38. Canon 1 provides in pertinent part that [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 that 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 3 relates generally to judicial duties prescribed by law, and requires a judge to perform these duties impartially and diligently. Significantly, this canon makes clear that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. Fla.Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3A. In addition, Canon 3B(4) provides that a judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and Canon 3B(8) requires a judge to dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly. Based upon our review, we conclude that Judge Woodard's misconduct during his campaign for judicial office in 2004 represents an attempt to influence the political process in violation of Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Further, by misrepresenting in his campaign literature the number of jury trials over which he had presided, Judge Woodard interfered with a truthful and orderly election. Clearly, the misconduct during the campaign for judicial office fails to comport with the high standards of conduct required of judges by the Code of Judicial Conduct. Moreover, this misconduct undermines the public's confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.