Opinion ID: 1771843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: charges iii-v

Text: Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 3(d) provides: [c]losed files of prior proceedings against a judge may be referred to by the Commission at any stage of the current proceedings. We addressed the use of such files in subsequent proceedings in In re Soileau, and held that the constitutional guarantee against being twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense does not apply to a disciplinary proceeding. 502 So.2d 1083, 1086. In Soileau, we also adopted as guidelines for the use of closed files the Professional Discipline for Lawyers and Judges, Standards Relating to Judicial Discipline and Disability Retirement, § 4.13 (1979), which permits the use of closed files: (1) to show that the problem is a continuing one and not just a rare occurrence if a new complaint is based on a similar occurrence, and (2) to determine the recommended sanction, whether the subsequent complaint is related or unrelated. In re Soileau, supra at 1086; In re Quirk, supra at 189. Because we have concluded that there was no judicial misconduct relative to Charge II, it is not necessary for us to address the merits of Charges III, IV and V, which were the subject of a previously closed Judiciary Commission file. See In re Quirk, supra at 189.