STEPHANIE PERONA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE FORT PIERCE/PORT ST. LUCIE TRIBUNE, APPELLEE
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.
Stephanie Perona sought a writ of prohibition to disqualify Judge Bryan from a case involving The Fort Pierce/Port St. Lucie Tribune, based on the judge's prior representation of the newspaper. The court denied the petition, holding that prior legal representation of a party, without more, does not constitute grounds for disqualification under Florida's judicial conduct rules.
A judge's prior representation of a party, without more, is not a ground for disqualification under Canon 3E, particularly where the prior representation did not involve advice pertaining to the issues in the pending case.
[1] A judge must disqualify themselves when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned.
[2] Former representation of a party by a judge, without more, is not automatically a ground for disqualification.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when the judges' impartiality might be reasonably be questioned”
Statement of the standard under Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct for required disqualification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJudge Bryan had previously represented The Fort Pierce/Port St. Lucie Tribune in various matters dating back 10-15 years, including representation rel…
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 Impartiality Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
This petition for writ of prohibition, seeking quashal of an order denying the petitioner’s motion to disqualify, was grounded on the following letter written by Judge Bryan.
Re: The Fort Pierce/Port St. Lucie Tribune vs Stephanie Perona
Dear Counsel:
I was advised by Mrs. Moore of my former law office that someone had called to inquire as to whether I have ever represented The Tribune. I have. Without pulling files, my best recollection is that I represented it in 1994 or 1995 relative to an effort to have a Court hearing closed. I also represented it 5 — 10 years ago when it bought property in Port St. Lucie. Over 10 or 15 years ago I represented it on two or three other matters, the substance of which I don’t recall. My initial dealings were with Bob Enns who is now deceased, and my last dealing was with Dave Rutledge who is no longer with The Tribune.
With this information, anyone may do whatever they choose.
The Canon of our Code of Judicial Conduct which addresses this subject in general is Canon 3E, which requires judges to disqualify themselves “when the judges’ impartiality might be reasonably be questioned.” The Canon contains several examples of interests or relationships which would be grounds for disqualification; however, having formerly represented one of the parties is not one of the examples, nor is the former representation in this case analogous to any of the examples.
In Tampa St. Railway & Power Co. v. Tampa Suburban R.Co., 30 Fla. 595, 11 So. 562 (1892), one of the parties had been previously represented by the judge, before the judge went on the bench, and the Florida Supreme Court concluded that this, without more, was not a ground for disqualification. Needless to say, the prior representation had not involved advice pertaining to issues in the pending case. Nor does it here.
The petition for writ of prohibition is denied.
FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Anne D.M. Graham, M.D., 931 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ill not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.... ” Prior representation, in and of itself, does not automatically mandate recu-sal. See, e.g., Perona v. Fort Pierce/Port St. Lucie Tribune, 763 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Here, however, as Petitioners argue, the judge would have had a conflict of interest preventing her, if she had remained in practice, from representing them given her prior representation of Good Samaritan and, therefore, should…
Authorities Cited
- The Tampa St. Ry. & Power Co. v. The Tampa Suburban R.R. Co., 30 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1892)