Donate Yes, Auction No
Two new opinions of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee
Opinion Number: 2019-15
Date of Issue: April 12, 2019
ISSUES
1. Whether a judge may participate in a Habitat for Humanity fund-raiser by donating baked goods that will be auctioned off during the event.
ANSWER: Yes, judges may donate items to a fund-raiser as long nothing reveals that the item was donated by a judge.
2. Whether a judge may participate in a Habitat for Humanity fund-raising event by serving as an auctioneer of the donated baked goods who will “get on stage to entertain the attendees in some fashion to encourage bids.”
ANSWER: No.
FACTS
The Inquiring Judge has been invited to provide baked goods that will be auctioned off during a fund-raising event for Habitat for Humanity. The non-law-related charity also asked that the Inquiring Judge act as an auctioneer who will “get on stage to entertain the attendees in some fashion to encourage bids” for the judge’s donated baked goods. All proceeds go to Habitat for Humanity.
Opinion Number: 2019-14
Date of Issue: April 10, 2019
ISSUES
Whether the inquiring judge has a duty to report an attorney to The Florida Bar in circumstances where representations made to the court by the attorney during a judicial proceeding were known by the inquiring judge to be false.
ANSWER: In the circumstances presented, Canon 3D(2) requires the inquiring judge to report the attorney for misconduct to The Florida Bar.
FACTS
A judge has inquired whether there is an ethical obligation under the Code of Judicial Conduct to report an attorney for misconduct to The Florida Bar based on the following facts. The inquiring judge was presiding over probation violation proceedings in which defense counsel, mid-way through a series of hearings, insisted that the client/defendant did not speak or understand English; could not proceed without the assistance of an interpreter; and could not have willfully violated the applicable probationary conditions because the defendant never understood those obligations as a result of the alleged language issue. The inquiring judge knows the lawyer’s representations are false. Specifically, the inquiring judge knows, based on record evidence, that the lawyer’s client/defendant previously acknowledged in open court that the client speaks English well enough to be comfortable conducting court matters in English, the defendant always spoke English with probation officers without apparent difficulty, the client never requested a translator before, and the lawyer knew when making the contrary allegations that the client/defendant speaks and understands English.
The inquiring judge is concerned that the lawyer’s breach of his duty of candor to the tribunal may have been so egregious as to call into question his honesty and trustworthiness as a lawyer.
(Mike Frisch)