Opinion ID: 1950063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Character Letter Use in Disciplinary Proceedings

Text: The procedural circumstances of this cause require us to consider the ethical and procedural use of character letters as evidence in disciplinary proceedings. In asserting his claim of good character, respondent filed with his brief character letters from twelve Palm Beach County officials consisting of six circuit judges, four county court judges, the state attorney, and the sheriff. Character letters are not proper evidence in any court proceeding. Further, this Court's directive to file briefs is not a license to submit evidence. Character letters from members of the judiciary present an additional problem because of the restrictions contained in new Judicial Canon 2(B). [27] Recognizing that this was a new Canon and that it should be interpreted more clearly to define proper and improper conduct in the circumstances of character letters, the Judicial Qualifications Commission directed its general counsel to request an opinion on this very issue from the Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct. [28] The Committee determined that the signing and tendering of character letters by members of the judiciary in a case pending in this Court involving an attorney's suspension from practice violated the spirit and intent of Canon 2(B). So that the judiciary and the Bar are fully aware of the Committee's response, we have attached as an appendix to our opinion, without the formal parts, both the proposed question and the opinion response. We note that the judicial officers who submitted the character letters in this cause had no knowledge of this opinion since it was not sought or published until after the letters were submitted and filed in this cause. The purpose of the restriction in Canon 2(B) is to ensure that the weight and prestige of judicial office will not be used to advance the private interests of others. Respondent solicited these character references in order to avoid professional discipline. The Canon states expressly that a judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness. This does not mean that information and knowledge of judicial officers concerning a lawyer charged with a disciplinary violation cannot be submitted to the Court in a proper manner. When evidence of this nature is desired to be presented, it must be offered in a manner that complies with the Canon and affords Bar disciplinary counsel an opportunity to cross-examine and rebut that evidence. Character letters, irrespective of who submits them, are not proper evidence in any court proceeding and certainly should not be considered proper in a disciplinary proceeding. It has been suggested that the letter opinion from the Florida Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct may be in conflict with the 1973 informal opinion rendered by the American Bar Association Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. [29] We disagree. The American Bar Association opinion concerned a request from state disciplinary counsel for information from local judges regarding an attorney under investigation. Responding to this request does no violence to the purpose of Canon 2(B). In no way does that request inject the prestige of judicial office for the private interests of others.