In re Barnes

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed disciplinary proceedings concerning County Court Judge Clifford H. Barnes. The court upheld findings that Judge Barnes violated judicial conduct rules by filing a mandamus petition concerning pretrial release practices, publicly criticizing other judges, and failing to use proper channels, while rejecting the finding that he improperly practiced law. The court approved a public reprimand and assessment of proceeding costs.

Holdings

1. A sitting judge violates the judicial canons governing impartiality when the judge uses a public legal proceeding to advocate for criminal defendants likely to appear before the judge, thereby injecting the judge and the judge's office into a controversy and creating questions about the judge's impartiality.
2. The JQC failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Barnes engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he filed the mandamus petition.
3. A judge violates Canons 1 and 2 by using a public mandamus petition to mount highly critical attacks against fellow sitting judges and their judicial practices.
4. A judge violates Canons 1 and 2 by publicly airing grievances concerning alleged misconduct by other judges through a mandamus petition rather than pursuing appropriate internal or institutional channels.
5. A public reprimand and assessment of the costs of the disciplinary proceedings are appropriate sanctions for the sustained violations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the JQC's findings that Judge Barnes's mandamus petition created an appearance of partiality and violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct were supported by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Whether Judge Barnes's filing of the mandamus petition constituted the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Canon 5.
3. Whether Judge Barnes improperly mounted public attacks against fellow judges in violation of Canons 1 and 2.
4. Whether Judge Barnes failed to follow proper channels in presenting grievances concerning other judges in violation of Canons 1 and 2.
5. Whether a public reprimand and assessment of proceeding costs were appropriate discipline.

Disposition

approved