Opinion ID: 1832295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judge Frank's First Statement: I will tell you, I have studiously stayed away from Stacy's divorce litigation.

Text: The first statement found by the Hearing Panel to be false and misleading occurred in the following exchange between Straley's counsel and Judge Frank during the grievance proceeding: Q. [Straley's counsel] Well, you would agree that the article is accurate insofar as it indicates that Straley won on appeal with respect to the meat of the issue. Right? A. [By Judge Frank] I will tell you, I have studiously stayed away from Stacy's divorce litigation. In his answer to the formal notice filed by the Investigative Panel, Judge Frank quotes the continuation of his answer: I will tell you also that I don't believe I've even read more than once any of the opinions that came out of the Fifth District. And I've had a Fifth DistrictI've been with the Fifth District Judges on several occasions and I have never discussed Stacy's case with any of them. I just don't know that much about it. I have stayed out of it. I do know that Judges have come to me and have said there was a bizarre result that was reached over in the Fifth District, but I've never commented about that to anyone. Contrary to the Hearing Panel's findings, the record does not clearly and convincingly establish that Judge Frank's statement was false and misleading when considered in the total context. The statement at issue was made while Judge Frank was being questioned concerning the particular substance of an issue addressed in one of the five appellate decisions rendered in connection with this litigation over the course of six years. [5] In our view, the response can reasonably be interpreted in context to indicate that Judge Frank had not studied particular issues and that he could not discuss the substance of those issues. Moreover, while the evidence shows that Judge and Mrs. Frank loaned Stacy $30,000 in 1989 to help her pay her trial counsel's attorney's fees, and that Judge Frank spoke with Judge Altenbernd about George Vaka's competence to handle a matrimonial matter, those facts alone do not render false Judge Frank's statement that he had studiously stayed away from Stacy's divorce litigation. In fact, given the extensive nature of the Frank-Straley litigation, the limited involvement on Judge Frank's part in several matters which were ancillary to the divorce litigation show that his conduct with regard to appellate decisions and substantive issues was entirely consistent with the statement at issue.