INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE JQC NO. 2024-796 RE: MARTHA CANNON ADAMS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court accepted a Stipulation and Findings and Recommendations of Discipline resolving charges against Orange County Judge Martha Cannon Adams for violating the Canons of Judicial Conduct through biased, impatient, undignified, and discourteous behavior toward State Attorney's Office staff. The Court imposed a public reprimand as the recommended discipline.
A public reprimand is the appropriate discipline for Judge Adams's violations of Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), and 3B(5), despite the normally more serious consequences for such conduct, based on her clean seventeen-year disciplinary record and demonstrated remorse.
[1] A judge's biased, impatient, undignified, and discourteous behavior toward court staff and management violates the Canons of Judicial Conduct.
[2] Rude and intemperate comments by a judge, including personal insults and accusations of conspiracy, constitute misconduct under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Judge Adams' comments are well outside the bounds of what is acceptable for members of our judiciary. In many cases, adequate discipline for such behavior would require more than a public reprimand.”
Establishes that the conduct was serious and would normally warrant more severe discipline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile presiding over criminal cases, Judge Adams directed rude and intemperate comments at members of the State Attorney's Office, including calling a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Discipline cases and more on FLexlaw
The Judicial Qualifications Commission has filed with our Court a Stipulation and Findings and Recommendations of Discipline to resolve a charge against Orange County Judge Martha Adams.
The parties agree that Judge Adams violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct through “biased, impatient, undignified, and discourteous behavior [toward] the staff and management of the Ninth Circuit State Attorney's Office.”
The parties further agree that Judge Adams should be disciplined by the imposition of a public reprimand.
We accept the stipulation and findings and will impose the recommended discipline.
See art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. (allowing the Court to accept, reject, or modify the Commission's findings and recommendations). The parties agree that, while presiding over criminal cases in her court, Judge Adams directed rude and intemperate comments at members of the State Attorney's Office.
She called one assistant state attorney an “ass”; talked about making the life of one State Attorney's Office employee “a shambles”; and said that the State Attorney's Office was conspiring to remove her from the bench and that therefore she would have to start “being a ‘bitch' ” in her rulings.
We accept the Commission's conclusion that these actions violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), and 3B(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Aside from generally requiring judges to uphold the integrity of the courts, these canons demand that judges treat parties respectfully and impartially.
Judge Adams' comments are well outside the bounds of what is acceptable for members of our judiciary.
In many cases, adequate discipline for such behavior would require more than a public reprimand.
The record shows, though, that Judge Adams had a clean disciplinary record throughout her seventeen years of prior judicial service and that she had no other complaints of this nature.
The Commission also found that Judge Adams has expressed deep regret and apologized in writing to the individuals - 2 - directly affected by her misconduct.
We accept the Commission's determination that, given this mitigation, discipline short of a suspension is sufficient.
For all these reasons, we approve the Stipulation and Findings and Recommendations of Discipline in this matter. Judge Adams is hereby ordered to appear before this Court for the administration of a public reprimand at a time to be established by the Clerk of this Court.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. GROSSHANS, J., recused.