Public Reprimand Recommended for Fla. Appeals Court Judge

Legal Ethics

Public Reprimand Recommended for Fla. Appeals Court Judge

Posted Jul 18, 2008, 05:06 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

A Florida appeals court judge who criticized a fellow jurist in a written opinion should be publicly reprimanded, a hearing panel has recommended.

It is now up to the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether to reprimand 1st District Court of Appeal Judge Michael Allen in the highly unusual case, if he challenges the recommendation. The matter concerns a claim by Allen in a written opinion that a fellow appeals court justice in the 1st District, Charles Kahn Jr., cast what the Fort Mill Times characterizes as a "corrupt vote" in a case against a former president of the Florida state senate.

Allen's opinion was "reckless and had no objectively reasonable factual basis," the state Judicial Qualifications Commission wrote in an opinion issued today. "He succumbed to his dislike of Judge Kahn, which clouded his perspective and his judgment."

However, the panel said it didn't think a harsh punishment was warranted, given Allen's generally good work as a judge.

The discipline case is unique in Florida, where no state judge has ever been disciplined over the content of a written opinion, according to Allen's lawyer, Bruce Rogow. He also says he has found no comparable cases on point in other jurisdictions.

Allen denied at a hearing in June that he had violated judicial ethics standards. "Rogow said he also was pleased that the panel dismissed a second complaint alleging Allen had lied under oath by denying he had no animosity toward Kahn and that it appeared to invite an investigation of alleged extramarital affairs Kahn had with court personnel," the article in the South Carolina newspaper concludes.

Earlier coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Fla. Appeals Judge Faces New Charges Over Critique of Fellow Jurist in Opinion"

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by kay sieverding - 1 month, 1 week, 2 days, 14 hours, 36 minutes ago

I don’t understand this at all. The judiciary is not supposed to be a club. When there is judicial misconduct, such as ex parte conferences, jailing of citizens without a criminal charge, charge of contempt in the presence of the court, ordering that a plaintiff pay the defense counsel without a counter claim or rule 11 c. 6. order, or ignoring the activities of insurance companies that aren’t authorized to sell insurance in the state, are the other judges supposed to ignore the evidence? Witness intimidation, witness retaliation, deprivation of rights under color of law, and corrupt persuasion are felonies. If someone ignores a felony then it is “misprison of felony”. Loyalty to one’s profession isn’t supposed to result in obstruction.

With the internet today, evidence of judicial misconduct can become public quickly.

Has the U.S. judiciary done opinion polls on people’s confidence in the judiciary? If so, I didn’t see them published.

Transparency, accountability, and regulation are the ways to restore confidence in the judiciary.

The Internet has changed the practice of law. Everyone involved in law needs to accept that reality.
Posted by associate - 1 month, 1 week, 2 days, 1 hour, 42 minutes ago

Kay, in case you hadn’t read the article, none of what you said in your first paragraph was actually the issue in this case.
Posted by kay sieverding - 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 11 hours, 45 minutes ago

I did read the article, which has to do with what one judge should or should not do when there is evidence that another judge acted improperly. The assumption seems to be that in order for the judiciary to be respected and effective, misconduct should be covered up. But because of the Internet, judicial misconduct now more often becomes public. Thus, I think that effective judicial discipline is required to maintain respect for the judiciary.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Ethics