Massachusetts Reduces Sanction For Florida Judge Who Accepted Baseball Tickets From Counsel
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed reciprocal discipline on a former Florida judge but reduced the term of suspension from two years to 15 months.
The Rule thus does not require that I follow the Florida Supreme Court as I must set the appropriate sanction under our jurisdiction so that it does not markedly differ from punishments ordered in similar cases. See In re Burnbaum, 466 Mass. 1024, 1025 (2013). Although I do not consider the Florida Supreme Court’s suspension wholly unreasonable, I find that the misconduct does not require the exact same punishment here.
The misconduct
While a judge, Mr. Lakin presided over a trial that lasted from June 22, 2015 until June 25, 2015. On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs counsel offered Mr. Lakin tickets to the Tampa Bay Rays’ home game against the Boston Red Sox and Mr. Lakin accepted. On July 2, 2015, plaintiffs counsel filed a motion for a new trial. Mr. Lakin held a hearing on that motion on August 21, 2015. On August 25, 2015, he requested and received two more tickets to the Rays game from plaintiffs counsel. On August 26, 2015, he granted plaintiffs motion for a new trial. Mr. Lakin asked for tickets on two more occasions before disclosing the gifts to defense counsel on October 9, 2015, and recusing himself on October 15, 2015. After becoming aware of a pending formal violation against him, Mr. Lakin self-reported to the Florida Judicial Qualification Commission, which filed formal charges against him on February 1, 2016.
Despite this behavior, the [Florida] Referee found that Mr. Lakin exhibited no bias in ordering a new trial; the respondent had planned to do so anyway. Mr. Lakin’s actions also resulted in no actual injury to the parties because an Appeals Court reversed respondent’s order for a new trial based on the law, not on his misconduct. Mr. Lakin experienced severe stress during this period due to his son’s mental illness. The respondent claimed that the tickets provided a way to spend time with his troubled son. Although the referee noted the son’s mental health issues, he did not list it as a mitigating factor in his report.
The court relied on findings in Florida that he had no ill intent and there was no actual prejudice.
There is no indication that the court considered the fact that it was a Red Sox game as a mitigating factor. (Mike Frisch)