Inquiry Concerning a Judge JQC No. 2024-796 Re: Martha Cannon Adams

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: May 8, 2025
• Docket: SC2025-0278
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2025-0278 ____________

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE JQC NO. 2024-796 RE: MARTHA CANNON ADAMS.

May 8, 2025

PER CURIAM.

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

-2- directly affected by her misconduct. We accept the Commission’s

determination that, given this mitigation, discipline short of a

suspension is sufficient.

For all these reasons, we approve the Stipulation and Findings

and Recommendations of Discipline in this matter. Judge Adams is

hereby ordered to appear before this Court for the administration of

a public reprimand at a time to be established by the Clerk of this

Court.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. GROSSHANS, J., recused.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission

Gregory W. Coleman, Chair, Hon. Gary Flower, Vice Chair, and Hugh R. Brown, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner

Thomas D. Sommerville, Orlando, Florida,

for Judge Martha Cannon Adams, Respondent

-3-