Opinion ID: 3163627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recommended and Appropriate Discipline

Text: “While this Court gives the findings and recommendations of the JQC great weight, ‘the ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination rests with this Court.’ ” Kinsey, 842 So. 2d at 85 (footnote omitted) (quoting In re Davey, 645 So. 2d at 404). Under the Florida Constitution, The supreme court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the commission and it may order that the justice or judge be subjected to appropriate discipline, or be removed from office with termination of compensation for willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties or for other conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office, or be involuntarily retired for any permanent disability that seriously interferes with the performance of judicial duties. Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. “[D]iscipline is defined as any or all of the following: reprimand, fine, suspension with or without pay, or lawyer discipline.” Art. V, § 12(a)(1), Fla. Const. Additionally, “[t]he supreme court may award costs to the prevailing party.” Art. V, § 12(c)(2), Fla. Const. - 16 - The object of these proceedings is not to inflict punishment, but to determine a judge’s fitness to serve. In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d 560, 571 (Fla. 2001). When considering fitness to serve, this Court must hold judges “to higher ethical standards than lawyers ‘by virtue of their position in the judiciary and the impact of their conduct on public confidence in an impartial justice system.’ ” In re Hawkins, 151 So. 3d 1200, 1212 (Fla. 2014) (citing McMillan, 797 So. 2d at 571). This high standard of ethical and professional conduct is necessary because “[t]he judicial system can only function if the public is able to place its trust in judicial officers.” In re Ford-Kaus, 730 So. 2d 269, 277 (Fla. 1999). Removal is proper when clear and convincing evidence is presented that the judge has engaged in “conduct . . . demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office.” Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.; see also In re Albritton, 940 So. 2d 1083, 1088 (Fla. 2006). “Malafides, scienter or moral turpitude on the part of a justice or judge” is not necessary for removal from office. Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.
We examine judicial misconduct for present fitness to hold office “from two perspectives: its effect on the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary as reflected in its impact on the judge’s standing in the community, and the degree to which past misconduct points to future misconduct fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office.” Sloop, 946 So. 2d at 1055. To - 17 - preserve the integrity of the judiciary, a judge must observe a high standard of personal conduct, “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” and be “patient, dignified and courteous” to every individual with whom the judge interacts professionally. Fla. Code of Jud. Cond. Canons 1, 3. We have repeatedly held that “[r]emoval is an appropriate discipline where the actions of the judge simply ‘should erode confidence in the judiciary,’ even where it does not appear that the public has lost confidence, and even where the Hearing Panel has recommended a lesser sanction than removal.” Hawkins, 151 So. 3d at 1215 (quoting Sloop, 946 So. 2d at 1055 (emphasis in original)). See also In re Henson, 913 So. 2d at 588 (finding removal appropriate because “the respect of the public [is] essential to [the judiciary’s] mission as the third branch of government.”); In re LaMotte, 341 So. 2d 513, 518 (Fla. 1977) (finding removal proper even where misconduct does not appear to have shaken public faith in the judiciary). Even where a judge has an outstanding record, removal is the appropriate sanction for a judge whose misconduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office or strikes at the heart of judicial integrity. See, e.g., In re Graziano, 696 So. 2d 744, 749 (Fla. 1997); In re Johnson, 692 So. 2d 168, 172 (Fla. 1997) (“We cannot dispute Judge Johnson’s otherwise unblemished judicial record.”); In re Garrett, 613 So. 2d 463, - 18 - 464 (Fla. 1993) (removing Judge Garrett based on one incident of petit theft despite an “unblemished career of public service”). Our inquiry into judicial misconduct must also consider its future implications on the offending judge’s ability to serve. Our determinations of appropriate discipline are based in part on the likelihood of that misconduct reoccurring. Compare, e.g., In re Crowell, 379 So. 2d 107, 110 (Fla. 1979) (removing Judge Crowell for unfitness “substantially due to his tendency to lose his temper”) and Sloop, 946 So. 2d at 1059 (removing Judge Sloop because “we [were] unconvinced that [he could] both effectively manage his temper and remain an effective jurist”) with In re Wood, 720 So. 2d 506, 509 (Fla. 1998) (finding public reprimand appropriate given Judge Wood’s candor and commitment to ongoing treatment for anger and stress management). This Court has found removal appropriate even where a judge seeks treatment for a medical condition related to his or her severe misconduct. See, e.g, Sloop, 946 So. 2d at 1056 (finding removal appropriate for arresting traffic defendants who were in the wrong courtroom as a result of being misdirected, where the judge blamed his conduct on his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder); Garrett, 613 So. 2d at 464 (finding removal appropriate for a one-time theft of electronics where the judge suffered from depression). Furthermore, a pattern of misconduct is not necessary for removal. See Sloop, 946 So. 2d at 1056; Garrett, 613 So. 2d at 464. - 19 - Focusing first on the effects on the public’s trust in the judiciary, we must conclude that Judge Murphy is not presently fit to serve. Judge Murphy used profanity in an open courtroom and threatened violence against an attorney appearing before him. This is the sort of egregious conduct that erodes the public’s confidence. It is without question that except for the June 2, 2014, incident, Judge Murphy has been a good judge. Notwithstanding his prior judicial performance, Judge Murphy’s total lack of self-control became a national spectacle—an embarrassment not only to the judge himself but also to Florida’s judicial system. Given the clear erosion of public confidence in the judiciary caused by his misconduct, removal is an appropriate sanction. As to the likelihood of future misconduct, it is unclear whether Judge Murphy is likely to have another similar outburst. Although he immediately sought treatment and an underlying cause for his misconduct, this Court has found removal appropriate even where a judge takes steps to address mental health. See Sloop, 946 So. 2d at 1056; Garrett, 613 So. 2d at 464. We must also take note that Judge Murphy ultimately discovered an underlying cause of his misconduct: PTSD. Although Judge Murphy’s doctors indicated before the Hearing Panel that his anger and stress were being managed through treatment, these assurances conflict with the VA finding that Judge Murphy is 30% disabled based on PTSD - 20 - stemming from his combat deployment in Afghanistan. Dr. Ronsisvalle made no mention of PTSD in his testimony before the Hearing Panel, and Dr. Fairchild’s report explicitly found no evidence of PTSD. In contrast, the VA found “[o]ccupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress.” As the JQC indicated, a trial judge’s duties frequently include periods of significant stress. The severity of Judge Murphy’s behavior and the VA finding leave open the possibility of future misconduct. Based on the clear erosion of public faith in our court system caused by Judge Murphy’s misconduct and the unmistakable possibility that he could have a similar outburst in the future, we must find that Judge Murphy is presently unfit to serve.
In evaluating judicial misconduct, we generally place great weight on the recommendation of the Hearing Panel. However, this Court will not approve a recommendation for discipline short of removal for particularly egregious misconduct rendering a judge unfit for office. See, e.g., Sloop, 946 So. 2d at 1056; In re Renke, 933 So. 2d 482, 493 (Fla. 2006). Ultimately, the decision of whether to order removal rests with this Court. Kinsey, 842 So. 2d at 85. In this case, the Hearing Panel’s recommended discipline stops short of removal. However, the JQC, in its Reply to this Court’s order to show cause, - 21 - argued that Judge Murphy’s VA disability did not support his present fitness and described his misconduct as having “single-handedly caused the Florida judicial system to become a national embarrassment.” Judge Murphy’s “intemperate courtroom behavior not only damaged public confidence in him as a judicial officer but struck ‘at the very roots of an effective judiciary, for those who are served by the courts will not have confidence in and respect for the courts’ judgments if judges engage in this egregious conduct.’ ” In re Shea, 110 So. 3d 414, 418 (Fla. 2013) (quoting In re Schapiro, 845 So. 2d 170, 174 (Fla. 2003)). Given the erosion of public confidence caused by Judge Murphy’s misconduct, we reject the JQC’s recommendation of discipline in this case.
On June 2, 2014, Judge Murphy threatened an assistant public defender with violence in open court, challenged him to a physical fight, engaged in the threatened struggle in which the two men had to be physically separated by a deputy, and reassumed the bench to handle cases where the defendants were without the presence of their attorney. Because of Judge Murphy’s appalling behavior, we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Murphy engaged in “conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office.” Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. Judge Murphy’s conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of - 22 - judicial office and necessitates his removal. “[T]hrough his own actions culminating in the misconduct in this case, Judge [Murphy] has lost the public’s confidence in his ability to perform his judicial duties in a fair, evenhanded, and even-tempered manner.” Sloop, 946 So. 2d at 1059. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that appropriate discipline in this case demands that Judge Murphy be removed from office.