Hon. John Beamer is a Circuit Judge in the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which includes Osceola County, Florida. Osceola is just south of Orange County and includes the city of Kissimmee that many will associate with theme parks, hotels, and tourists. Judge Beamer was appointed just before the onset on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, taking the bench the month before that strange time began. In fairness, adapting to a new job had to be difficult in that moment.
Judge Beamer, like all constitutional trial judges in Florida has to face the challenge of re-election periodically. It is generally every six years. However, when a new judge is appointed, they must stand for retention election more rapidly at the outset. Judge Beamer was reelected in a primary election in August 2022. His current term runs until January 2029.
Judges in Florida are subject to a process of discipline that includes the Judicial Qualifications Commission or JQC. Complaints can be lodged there and the Commission is charged with investigation and recommendation. It cannot punish a judge. That falls exclusively to the Florida Supreme Court.
Following a JQC investigation, the Florida Supreme Court rendered Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 2023-153 re: Hon. John Beamer, No. SC2024-0284 (Fla. May 9, 2024). The Commission investigation revealed "dozens of cases and significant delays in rulings and orders." The Commission concluded that the judge was "counseled repeatedly without result.” When inappropriate behavior is identified and illuminated, there is benefit to all in there being both acknowledgment and remediation.
For some, there is an immediacy that is created by official action. It is different when a co-worker or chief judge points out a deficiency or problem than when an official body like the JQC does so. Channel 35 Orlando noted that filings indicate the
"chief judge of the 9th Judicial Circuit, which includes Osceola County, met with Beamer on 'no less than three occasions between late 2021 and early 2023 to discuss complaints about his delays in entering rulings and to stress the importance of entering prompt rulings.'"
The Supreme Court noted that when it undertook an investigation,
"The Commission also noted, however, that the Respondent immediately accepted responsibility for his conduct; cooperated with the Commission's Investigative Panel; and, both before and after receiving a notice of investigation, took steps to address the backlog of pending matters."
Those are critical. When you have a problem - admit it. When you fail, address it and improve. The JQC here entered a stipulation with the judge that his delays in entering rulings "violated Canons 1, 2, 3B(8), and 3C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct." These address performance of work "promptly, efficiently, and fairly" and diligence in "administrative responsibilities.
Judge Beamer was publicly reprimanded last week by the Florida Supreme Court. The investigation findings provide minute detail that includes "24 cases with final judgments pending more than 60 days." and 10 cases "pending more than a year since the trial." The parties in some of those cases have had meetings with the judge ("status conferences") to discuss the delayed rulings.
This is an interesting decision by the Court. And there are parallels certainly with the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims. The primary parallel is that the judges of this office are bound by the same Code of Judicial Conduct. Section 440.442, Fla. Stat. That has been true since 1978 in one form or another. No JCC can claim to not know that.
Diligence is expected of constitutional judges. But, diligence and timeliness in the Circuit Court arena are more vague and subject to interpretation than in workers' compensation. In Chapter 440, this office has requirements for timely mediation, trial, and order entry. Section 440.25, Fla. Stat. These parameters of 130 days for mediation, 210 days for trial, and 30 days for trial order are also not new.
Those parameters have been part of the statute for over twenty years. Every lawyer who has practiced workers' compensation knows these statutory parameters. Almost all of the judges have experience with them from practicing law (not Judge Lewis or Medina Shore as they have been on the bench since before those parameters were legislated in 2001). And, critically, every judge has been reminded of those time parameters with each Annual Report of this Office since 2006.
There is no Judge of Compensation Claims that is not (1) aware of the requirement of timely orders, and (2) bound by the requirements of diligence, efficiency, and promptness set forth in the Code of Judicial Conduct.
It is troubling to see Judge Beamer publicly reprimanded for his delays in ruling. His delays are significant and unflattering. His explanations that delays result from "his own inadequate time management practices and work-flow issues" cannot have been easy admissions. I admire him for his candor and commitment to performing in a more timely manner.
His struggles are impacting Floridians, and are now quite public. What judges have to remember, though, is that such delays are often the subject of ridicule and disrespect in hushed tones among lawyers long before they are truly "public" as in this instance.
Judge Beamer has now been discussed by Channel 35 Orlando, Channel 9 WFTV, the Orlando Sentinel, and Law360. Such exposure and public discussion have to be disconcerting and upsetting. Every judge believes themselves capable and effective. In fairness, judging is an extremely difficult job and requires our very best every day. It cannot demand perfection because it is a human occupation. But it is not too much to ask for diligence, efficiency, and promptness.
Such a reprimand is a good opportunity to refocus. In truth, no one can erase yesterday; that there have been unfortunate cases in which untimeliness has occurred in the past. The hope is that with correction can come growth and a new tomorrow. That is what the Chief Judge in Osceola undoubtedly hoped when those meetings occurred. That is what the lawyers hoped when those status conferences occurred. That is what the Supreme Court hopes now that a reprimand has been required.
Bluntly, there is no merit in delay. Trial orders do not get better with age. Wine does. Cheese does. Wisdom does. But even wine turns to vinegar and cheese turns to dust. Time will not make the judge's decisions easier, the order drafting easier, or somehow the job easier. Delay will only bring accumulation of unaddressed orders, pressure, and stress.
Everyone is rooting for the judge to rebound from a troubled start. There is admission of delays, violations, and shortcomings. There is a commitment to grow from the challenges and to meet tomorrow with a renewed spirit and verve. Certainly, there are high hopes for tomorrow. And, as certainly, there is the probability of ongoing public scrutiny.
The best advice for any judge? Get the orders out today. Focus on the task at hand. Eliminate distractions and invest in getting the job done. Know from your peers that timely and effective performance is not only possible but quite common. Know that if your peers can do it, you most certainly can also. You need only decide that you will.