IN RE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
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 amended the commentary to Canon 3D of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct to clarify that judges must report attorney or judicial misconduct raising substantial questions about fitness to the appropriate authority, while permitting direct communication alone for minor violations.
A judge must report to appropriate authority any judicial or attorney misconduct raising a substantial question about fitness, though direct communication suffices for minor violations.
[1] A judge having knowledge that another judge or lawyer has committed a violation raising a substantial question as to fitness must report to appropriate authority, while m…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe new Code of Judicial Conduct adopted in 1994 created confusion regarding Canon 3D, which addresses a judge's obligations when learning of attorney…
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 Ethics cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On our own motion we have promulgated an amendment to the commentary to Canon 3D of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3D concerns what action a judge should take for an attorney’s or another judge’s misconduct, and it appears that the new Code of Judicial Conduct has created some confusion regarding this issue since its adoption in 1994. The following amendment and modification to the commentary of Canon 3D should eliminate any perceived ambiguity in the Canon and its requirement: Commentary:
Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer who has committed the violation, other direct action if available, or reporting the violation to the appropriate authority or other agency. If the conduct is minor, the Canon allows a judge to address the problem solely by direct communication with the offender. A judge having knowledge, however, that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question as to that other judge’s fitness for office or has knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, is required under this Canon to inform, the appropriate authority. While worded differently, this Code provision has the identical purpose as the related Model Code provisions.
We grant any interested parties 60 days to file comments in this Court concerning this amendment to the commentary to Canon 3D.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landry v. State, 666 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1995)…even if adverse.13 We should enforce these provisions. Canon 3 D of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and the amended comment adopted June 15, 1995,14 could provide a method to engage the disciplinary process. See In re Code of Judicial Conduct, 656 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1995). OVERTON, J., concurs. . Canon 3 B(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct states in pertinent part: “A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.” . Rule 4-1.1 of the Rules Regulating the Florida…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Charnock, 661 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1995)…andards required of Florida Bar members. I do not recommend discipline for those lawyers, but I do caution those lawyers against such future conduct in accord with Canon 3D of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. See In re Code of Judicial Conduct, 656 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, I would approve the referee’s findings of guilt, in that respondent’s actions in employing rule 1.580 were unethical. However, I would disapprove the referee’s findings that Charnock testified untruthfully. I dissent to the…