Sarcasm is troublesome. It's likely the worst challenge society faces (sarcasm). No, we can all likely live without sarcasm, but many might find a variety of concerns as weighty. Discourtesy? Perhaps that is equally inappropriate, and perhaps more so. A judge in Seminole County, Florida is currently working through an investigation by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC). The process has extended over months.
The overall characterization is of intemperance. This includes sarcasm, raised voice in the courtroom, and unfortunately profanity. The news reports that "during a two-and-a-half-week period in 2022" several allegations were made regarding conduct. The JQC has recommended "a 60-day suspension, public reprimand, and continued anger management," but ultimately the Florida Supreme Court will decide the appropriate course.
In one event in 2022, the judge was conducting a hearing. The JQC concluded that he "made sarcastic comments to a litigant," and “declared the litigant to be in direct criminal contempt, without conducting the legally required hearing.” That is not to discount the sarcasm, but possibly it was the imposition of direct contempt without hearing that was most critical. For more on contempt, see Follow Orders or Seek Relief (August 2017)(yes, I have been blogging a while). Imposition of contempt was recently in another judge's news, see She Must Go (May 2024).
As an aside, there are Judges of Compensation Claims who have lamented their lack of contempt powers over the years. I have conducted hundreds of trials and thousands of hearings without that power. Certainly, those have included an unruly individual or two. Nonetheless, I have been fortunate in never feeling that I either needed or would have used contempt to enforce order. While that power is likely essential in the broader jurisdictions of the constitutional courts, it is not necessary in administrative proceedings.
The second incident cited by the news was apparently during a time that "social distancing" still prevailed. I suspect we will all struggle at some point to make people understand what the world was like during the COVID pandemic. In a nutshell, there were valiant efforts to keep people from getting too close, and that meant within six feet. There were stores with stickers on the floor in the check-out lines. There were waiting rooms with taped-off chairs. It was a surreal time.
Apparently, a person entered the judge's courtroom in February 2022 and was confronted with some frustration in finding a place to sit. The shortage of seating was thus disruptive, and eventually, the judge was heard to say “Can you shut up and sit down?” Perhaps it was not the seat-searching as much as it was not done quietly? According to the news, the interaction with this seat-searching person also led to "threatening the use of his contempt authority."
There was a third instance involving contempt in February 2022. This one involved holding another man "in direct criminal contempt for failure to attend a required batterer’s intervention class, (and)
sentencing him to the maximum 179 days in jail. That is almost 6 months. The allegation was that "This contempt proceeding failed to comply with clearly established Florida law."
The JQC issued a report and recommended discipline in 2022. According to the news, the Supreme Court "rejected" a "recommended suspension" of the judge and instructed the JQC to hold a hearing. When that occurred, the judge testified and "admitted he did not act in the proper way, and he voluntarily completed an anger management course and sought mental health counseling."
The judge was reportedly "shock(ed) . . . by his use of profanity." He also admitted "the public would rightly be appalled." The news noted that his recognition of the problem was immediate and admitted, with him leaving the courtroom with the comment to his staff that "I really messed up in there.” I am a big fan of recognizing mistakes or failures. When we make errors, and we all will, owning them is a critical part of moving forward.
There are object lessons here for any and all. First and foremost, following the law is a judicial mandate. The point and purpose of judges is to interpret and follow the law. That is troubling to some who believe that means it is the judge's job to agree with their interpretation or argument. No, the judge's job is to make interpretations following their argument. There is no right to have the judge agree with you.
There will be instances in which lawyers and parties do not see the law in the same way that a party or parties might. That is a difference of interpretation or construction. If a party is disappointed in such a judicial decision, the appellate court is the appropriate place to seek review and correction. That said, judges are expected to follow the law and there is import to the conclusion of failing to "to comply with clearly established Florida law."
A second worthy point is that time is always limited. There are many tasks we face daily and there are only so many minutes. When our tasks are interrupted, but someone seeking a seat or holding a conversation, that may well frustrate progress and process. Nonetheless, there is a certain angst for many in attending legal proceedings. What is familiar to lawyers and judges may be a stressful new experience for others. Add to that the stress of SARS-CoV-2 and the distancing, sanitizing, and more, and stress levels might be challenging.
The man looking for a seat may have been stressed. He may have been anxious. He may have been loud, disruptive, and frustrating. In short, there will be interruptions in our day sometimes. We may have reactions. Perhaps in addition to admitting an error "I really messed up in there," there would be merit in reentering that room immediately and addressing those people? A simple, sincere, apology can go a long way in accepting errors and making amends.
There is no harm in voicing concerns. Lawyers, parties, and judges may all do so. Lawyers and parties may seek out a Chief Judge or the JQC. In the end, there is a process for perceptions of demeanor or temperance. If the concern is over legal interpretation, there are appellate courts that specialize in reviewing, analyzing, and interpreting laws, processes, and conclusions.
Time will tell where this particular recommendation leads. For anyone presiding over a hearing, trial, or even simple meeting, the lessons are clear. Strive persistently for patience and decorum. Take a break if you near a breaking point. strive to avoid reaching a moment of anger or outburst. When you find yourself in error, own it and apologize.
All that said, sarcasm is not likely the root of this story. Nonetheless, it is almost never welcome or appreciated. Reflecting, as here, may help us to avoid it and its potential for annoyance and discontent. The fact is that annoying behavior may not be actionable or earth-shattering any yet may remain annoying.
