In Re the Florida Bar-Code of Judicial Conduct

281 So. 2d 21, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4972
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 25, 1973
Docket43707
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 281 So. 2d 21 (In Re the Florida Bar-Code of Judicial Conduct) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re the Florida Bar-Code of Judicial Conduct, 281 So. 2d 21, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4972 (Fla. 1973).

Opinion

281 So.2d 21 (1973)

In re THE FLORIDA BAR — CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

No. 43707.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 25, 1973.

Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., Tampa, and John M. McCarty, Fort Pierce, for The Florida Bar.

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the petition of The Florida Bar seeking the adoption of a Code of Judicial Conduct in lieu of the existing Canons of Judicial Ethics which were adopted by this Court on January 27, 1941, and subsequently amended. By our order of December 21, 1970, "In Re: Petition of the Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct, we directed that a special committee submit a report containing its recommendations for the adoption of new canons of judicial ethics in accordance with a more modern and realistic concept of the responsibilities of judicial officers." This special committee was composed of the following members:

John M. McCarthy,    Stephen H. Grimes
  Chairman
E. Dixie Beggs,      Leon H. Handley
  Vice Chairman      Sam H. Mann, Jr.
Henry Burnett
Joel T. Daves III    Hamilton D. Upchurch
Darrey A. Davis      John T. Wigginton
L. Robert Frank      O. Edgar Williams, Jr.
Delbridge L. Gibbs
                     Board Liaison:
                     John R. Gould

Their work product has been approved by the County Judges Conference, the Circuit Judges Conference, the District Courts of Appeal Judges Conference and Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. They are to be commended for their exhaustive study and diligent efforts.

The proposed Code requires that many incumbent justices and judges be required to rearrange their financial and business interests. We feel that to require an immediate compliance with the Code, in this respect, would cause great financial hardship and we have, therefore, allowed the incumbent justices and judges a period of two years within which to bring themselves in strict compliance with Canon 5.

Many lawyers have become members of the judiciary at great financial sacrifice. Because of the limitations placed on business activities by the Code of Judicial Conduct and because of the limited salaries and retirement benefits, as well as the uncertainty of judicial tenure under present electoral process, a retired justice or judge who does not desire to accept assignment for judicial service shall be allowed to engage in the practice of law even though he may be drawing retirement benefits. We are of the opinion that this would be an incentive for lawyers of ability to seek judicial office.

The retirement benefits for all justices and judges are prescribed either under the Florida Retirement System (Fla. Stat., Ch. 121, F.S.A.) or the Supreme Court Justices, District Court of Appeal Judges and Circuit Judges Retirement System (Fla. Stat., Ch. 123, F.S.A.). We are aware of the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 123.09, F.S.A., providing as follows:

"No justice of the supreme court, district court of appeal judge or circuit judge shall engage in the practice of law in this state while drawing retirement compensation provided for by any law of this state for judges."

and Fla. Stat. § 123.20, F.S.A., relating to retirement for disability and providing as follows:

"No justice or judge shall engage in the practice of law in this state while drawing retirement compensation provided for by any law of this state for justices or judges."

The Florida Retirement System (Fla. Stat., Ch. 121, F.S.A.), does not prohibit a retired justice or judge from engaging in the practice of law. Even under the quoted *22 provisions of Fla. Stat., Ch. 123, F.S.A. (judicial retirement), a justice or judge would be entitled to engage in the practice of law without drawing his retirement. Such a justice or judge could subsequently offer himself for judicial assignment and renew the payment of his retirement benefits. It is apparent that the purpose of the statutes quoted above was to prohibit a retired judge subject to assignment from engaging in the practice of law, as this might create a conflict of interest in the event he served part time on the judiciary. This would be contrary to the philosophy that a practicing attorney should never be a part-time judge. The purpose of the quoted statutes was to regulate the practice of law as well as the conduct of judges. These are matters solely within the province of this Court under the provisions of Fla. Const., art. V, § 15, F.S.A. We therefore hold that Fla. Stat. §§ 123.09 and 123.20, F.S.A., are unconstitutional.

Other retirees under Chapter 121 (Florida Retirement System) are allowed to receive retirement benefits while employed at other occupations. See Fla. Stat., § 121.091, F.S.A. It would be a denial of equal protection to say that all retirees, except justices and judges, may engage in other professions or employment without losing retirement benefits.

The fact that this is not an adversary proceeding does not prohibit the Court from declaring the above statutes unconstitutional. See In Re: Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 63 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1953), where this Court in an advisory opinion (a non-adversary proceeding under the Constitution and Rules at that time) declared a statute to be unconstitutional.

The autonomy of the Legislature in the field of retirement is tempered by the vested rights of those employees who have contributed to the fund. A retired justice or judge, who rejects the possibility of assignment to judicial service, may embark on any other career he may choose without sacrificing his vested right to compensation under our retirement laws.

These are the only major additions to the Code of Judicial Conduct as submitted by The Florida Bar, although a few minor changes are made.

We point out that Canon 6 requires the manner and method of filing financial reports. A compliance with Canon 6 supersedes the requirements of any statute relating to financial reporting and it will not be necessary for the justices and judges to file reports under any statute since such reports are filed under Canon 6.

The appended Code of Judicial Conduct is hereby adopted in lieu of the existing Canons of Judicial Ethics and shall govern the conduct of all justices and judges effective September 30, 1973.

CARLTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

THE FLORIDA BAR

PREFACE

Some fifty years ago the American Bar Association formulated the original Canons of Judicial Ethics. Those Canons, occasionally amended, have been adopted in most states, including Florida.

Recognizing that current needs and problems required revisions, the American Bar Association has now adopted and proposed to the states and other jurisdictions, including the federal courts, a Code of Judicial Conduct. In the revision process, the Association sought and considered the views of the Bench and Bar and other interested persons.

*23 This Code, with minor modifications to adapt it to our Florida Judicial System, is adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida to supersede the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re: Amendments to Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
242 So. 3d 319 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)
In Re: Amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct
218 So. 3d 432 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
In Re AMENDMENTS TO the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT-CANON 7
167 So. 3d 399 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar
575 U.S. 433 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Code of Judicial Conduct
816 So. 2d 1084 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
In Re Code of Judicial Conduct
643 So. 2d 1037 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
In Re Glickstein
620 So. 2d 1000 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
In Re Code of Jud. Conduct
603 So. 2d 494 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Reiter v. Gross
599 So. 2d 1275 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Merckle v. State
529 So. 2d 269 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
Clayton v. Willis
489 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
In re Code of Judicial Conduct Amendment to Canon 5C(2)
463 So. 2d 1132 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Attorney General of Maryland v. Waldron
426 A.2d 929 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1981)
Alvarez v. State
349 So. 2d 688 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
In Re Code of Judicial Conduct (Fin. Disc.)
348 So. 2d 891 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1977)
The Florida Bar v. Prior
330 So. 2d 697 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1976)
Department of Revenue v. Golder
322 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)
Aetna Life & Casualty Company v. Thorn
319 So. 2d 82 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
In Re the Florida Bar
316 So. 2d 45 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 So. 2d 21, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-florida-bar-code-of-judicial-conduct-fla-1973.