Campaign Violations, Undignified Comments, Lead To Sanctions Of Florida Judges

The Florida Supreme Court has issued opinions in two judicial misconduct matters.

One matter drew a 10-day suspension without pay and reprimand

In response to charges by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, Broward County Judge Mardi Levey Cohen has admitted that she engaged in conduct that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct during her 2022 reelection campaign. The Commission and Judge Levey Cohen agree that, as discipline, she should be suspended for 10 days without pay and publicly reprimanded. To that end, the parties have filed with our Court an Amended Stipulation and Amended Findings and Recommendations of Discipline. We accept the amended stipulation and findings and will impose the recommended discipline. See art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. (authorizing the Court to accept, reject, or modify the Commission’s findings and recommendations).

The charges involve two distinct acts of misconduct. First, after receiving an email from a person claiming to be a relative of Judge Levey Cohen’s opponent in the 2022 campaign, the judge disseminated unverified information that accused the opponent of fraud. Second, to retaliate against a church where her opponent had campaigned, Judge Levey Cohen filed an Internal Revenue Service complaint challenging the church’s tax-exempt status. She then sent the church a copy of the complaint with a false return address of “IRS EO Classification,” suggesting that the correspondence was from the IRS itself.

The Commission and Judge Levey Cohen agree that these actions violated Canons 1, 2A, 7A(3)(b), and 7A(3)(e)(ii) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The other drew a public reprimand

The Judicial Qualifications Commission has filed with our Court a Stipulation and Findings and Recommendations of Discipline to resolve a charge against Orange County Judge Martha Adams. The parties agree that Judge Adams violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct through “biased, impatient, undignified, and discourteous behavior [toward] the staff and management of the Ninth Circuit State Attorney’s Office.” The parties further agree that Judge Adams should be disciplined by the imposition of a public reprimand. We accept the stipulation and findings and will impose the recommended discipline. See art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. (allowing the Court to accept, reject, or modify the Commission’s findings and recommendations).

The parties agree that, while presiding over criminal cases in her court, Judge Adams directed rude and intemperate comments at members of the State Attorney’s Office. She called one assistant state attorney an “ass”; talked about making the life of one State Attorney’s Office employee “a shambles”; and said that the State Attorney’s Office was conspiring to remove her from the bench and that therefore she would have to start “being a ‘bitch’ ” in her rulings. We accept the Commission’s conclusion that these actions violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), and 3B(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Aside from generally requiring judges to uphold the integrity of the courts, these canons demand that judges treat parties respectfully and impartially.

Judge Adams’ comments are well outside the bounds of what is acceptable for members of our judiciary. In many cases, adequate discipline for such behavior would require more than a public reprimand. The record shows, though, that Judge Adams had a clean disciplinary record throughout her seventeen years of prior judicial service and that she had no other complaints of this nature. The Commission also found that Judge Adams has expressed deep regret and apologized in writing to the individuals directly affected by her misconduct. We accept the Commission’s determination that, given this mitigation, discipline short of a suspension is sufficient.

(Mike Frisch)