Opinion ID: 2911975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 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 -4- 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 -5- 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 -6- 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 thirtyday 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. -7- 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.