There are frequently opportunities in life to learn from others. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself." There is merit in that. Life is, indeed, fleeting.
I am often reminded of that admonition when judges face discipline. A recent instance involves a County Court Judge appointed in 2023, who will reportedly resign at the end of October, according to WCJB. A quick review of the Circuit website confirms extensive experience and notable educational and professional credentials.
In October 2024, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission filed a Notice of Formal Charges concluding probable cause existed that the judge failed to comply with Canons 2A, 3B(2), 3B(4), and 3B(8). Specifics of each were quoted in the Notice.
There were conclusions as to "due process, ... patience, dignity, and courtesy." The Commission also noted a failure to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
It is fair to say that this instance illustrates some critical points. Nonetheless, the one most worthy of study is perhaps the necessity of community. The judge was called upon to preside in truancy proceedings, in proceedings with difficult parties, and in emotional situations. The Notice describes these.
The Judge filed a response and answer to the Notice. The response provides another perspective and explanation of the interactions and instances that were viewed by the Commission on courtroom recordings. The recordings, nonetheless, are compelling. The Judge did contest the validity of "the time stamp" on one recording, which might be inaccurate, and noted in another instance that the entire tenor of proceedings in the courtroom was "not necessarily fully reflected on the videotape." Further, that "the video is not the best evidence of fully showing the behavior of" a party in the courtroom.
This is respectful of both, with various iterations to the effect of:
"Admit content of verbatim communications at the hearing but deny argumentative wording/conclusions set forth in the paragraph."
Thus, on various points, there is not disagreement as to what was said, but the assertion that different perspectives might coexist regarding the words, tone, and more. That is an important consideration for all involved in litigation. Tone and volume may be interpreted differently by others.
There is an allegation in the response that the Judge suffered physically on one day. There is illness described, and it is axiomatic that illness, stress, and other influences can change how we act and react. In retrospect, the judge noted that because of illness, "she should have continued the hearing." She noted that she proceeded because "there was no other judge at the courthouse to cover it."
There is mention of tone and temperament. One instance involved a party who elected to converse with another attendee rather than devote his attention to the judge. Later, that party and another party became involved in a conversation that was not directed to the bench, and the judge was challenged to interrupt. There was no gavel at hand, and, without yelling, the judge found it "necessary as a practical matter to speak over them" to regain control of the hearing room.
That is always a concern. People wait and plan for hearings. Those involved in litigation often have high expectations for their day in court. Having a delay or the surprise of a substitute judge can be disconcerting and disappointing.
In various instances, the judge's response notes that "as a new judge, she had not had the benefit of Judicial College." There was "no formal training ... provided ... prior to taking the bench." There are multiple descriptions of the Judge preparing for new and unfamiliar responsibilities or duties by "read(ing) case law," "reviewing the rules ... and ... statutes," and consulting with colleagues.
On the "prior to the bench," I will never forget sitting down with the chief judge when I was first appointed. Her advice resonates to this day: "Welcome, and good luck." Not so helpful. In speaking with many older judges, I found her aid and succor were similar to each of us in this regard.
The judge in this complaint noted a pertinent point that should weigh on the mind of every new judge:
"for ... years ... before taking the bench (the judge) was an advocate, not a judge and ... there was a transition period ... adjusting to that new role."
There is great merit in education. Training is critical for a great many occupations and vocations. The job of adjudicating is no different. Nonetheless, the demands of the role are immediate, while the opportunities, such as the Judicial College, may require time.
Ultimately, the judge acknowledged that the judge "made mistakes at times." These included misunderstandings of the law and misstatements.
The lessons here are worth discussing. Every new judge will be inexperienced. That said, maybe there is some experience, education, or foundation that better prepares one of us than another. But at some point, we are all new. We may come from litigation or not, may have seen great judges in action or not, may have had an opportunity to study, observe, and emulate, or not.
Even if you had the chance to observe the best, speak to the best, and emulate the best, know that the view from that side of the bench is not the same. That is a ludicrous contention, but it is true.
The practice of law differs from its adjudication. Running a proceeding is challenging. Parties and witnesses can be challenging; those who lack an attorney particularly require a slower pace and greater patience. There are a variety of potential twists and turns in the law. And, there is the persistent pressure to get it right. A judge bears a huge responsibility to deliver due process, to remain attentive, to preserve patience, and to deserve respect.
Eons ago, in St. Elmo's Fire (1985 Columbia Pictures), a complex character utters a defining line, "Me? Oh, you know, it ain't easy being me." I suggest that this is true for anyone who would undertake being a judge. Having a gavel may be an aid (get attention and quiet a room). Wearing your court outfit may be an aid. Reading, writing, and studying may be an aid. But, nonetheless, "it ain't easy," ever.
What avenue did the judge in this complaint have that was not effectively engaged? As I read the Judge's Answer, I could think only of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (1999 Valleycrest). That show put people on the spot (as parties do with judges). The person on the spot had to analyze, differentiate, and decide. As the questions became more complex, the contestants were offered help.
The contestant could ask the producers to reduce the potential answers from four to two, called a "50:50." There is no producer in court, but if a judge can eliminate some potentials from a spectrum, the decision may be easier (this is perhaps of use in issues such as whether it is or is not hearsay, or whether an exception to hearsay does or does not apply). Parties can bring very complex issues, and finding a path to make sequential, smaller decisions in a process like hearsay may be more manageable.
The contestant on the show might also ask to "poll the audience." That one will not help in the context of the judge. The questions are all a matter of judicial decision. But the judge can always take a break. That affords time out of the public eye to look at (poll) the rules, the statutes, and the prior case decisions. This is not "polling" in the classic sense, but it both allows reflection and may minimize errors. It affords a look beyond personal knowledge, as a poll might.
Finally, the contestant on the show might "phone a friend." This was done live on the show, but in our context, it could be done in the same recess already suggested above. There is no better tool than "phone a friend." They are unlikely to give you the answer. But a call to a mentor can help with explaining your own perceptions, gathering other perceptions, and moving forward purposefully.
On the show, each contestant only got one of each of these opportunities (on the show, they were called "lifelines"). They judge, however, may take as many as they like. Ponderous is not suggested, but slow the roll as you need to in order to be effective and deliver the service the people deserve.
Over time, confidence and comfort grow, and you can evolve from needing the lifeline to being the lifeline. Know that you will never know everything. This role of adjudicator is persistently novel, challenging, and frankly amazing.
As an aside, judges should rely only on other judges in the advice process. See Canon 3B(7)(c). That said, these three lifeline suggestions might work as well for the attorney who is struggling, and they might benefit as readily. Their call to a friend should likely be to a lawyer mentor, to the same end of aiding critical thinking and analysis.
What can a judge who lacks formal training, a judicial college, and more do? These three pop-culture suggestions are worthy. I have trained many judges. The most important advice ever has been to address uncertainty by "calling a judge colleague you think will disagree with your first impression." Get the other perspective. It may lead you away from error or may commit you to your original course. But, either way, it will be an intellectual and helpful exercise for your thoughts and mind.
The judge in this story has announced a resignation. It will therefore never be known how the Florida Court might have ultimately perceived the circumstances or conclusions. Nonetheless, there are lessons here worth consideration and contemplation.
