Judicial candidate may use title "Administrative Law Judge" when describing experience with Division of Administrative Hearings  [Added 7/3/08]

    A candidate for judicial office presently serves as an administrative law judge for the Florida Department of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH").  During most of his employment with DOAH, the candidate has held the position of "Administrative Law Judge."  Prior to that, the candidate's position was that of "hearing officer."  The legislature changed the title of the position in 1996, but according to the candidate "the responsibilities of these adjudicative officials remained essentially unchanged under the amendments."  The candidate asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether the title "Administrative Law Judge" could be used when describing the candidate's years of service.

    The Committee responded with a qualified yes.  "It would be accurate, truthful, and avoid confusion, if the inquiring candidate used the term 'administrative law judge' when referring to the candidate’s current position or to that portion of her/his service as such, while clarifying that at the inception of the candidate’s service with DOAH the equivalent position was that of 'hearing officer.'  The candidate may, as a matter of explanation or clarification, render an opinion that the legislative title change from 'hearing officers' to “administrative law judges” in 1996 did not involve any substantial change in or expansion of responsibilities."  (Emphasis in original.)  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-15 (Election).

Judicial candidate ethically may sign pledge to strive for diversity in discretionary appointments, per Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee  [Added 6/30/08]

    A Candidate for judicial office asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to sign a pledge proffered by the Cuban American Bar Association.  Among other things, the pledge states that Candidate commits to "treat all who come before the Court, be they litigants, attorneys, jurors, or witnesses, equally and with respect, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation" and to "strive for diversity in my discretionary appointments."  Candidate's request for an opinion stated that the bar association "intends to publish the name of any candidate that does not sign the pledge."

    The Committee responded that Candidate could sign the pledge, provided that the pledge was "qualified by a pledge to follow Canon 3C(4), Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that '[a] judge shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit.'  A commitment to appoint based upon diversity alone, without a commitment to exercise the power of appointment impartially and upon the basis of merit, is a commitment which appears to violate the Code."

    The pledge also committed the signer to "always be open to hearing from the community concerning ways of improving access to the courts, promoting diversity, and ensuring equal treatment."  In the view of the Committee, this portion of the pledge "does not appear to implicate the Code of Judicial Conduct, except to the extent it may imply the judge may receive ex parte communications" (citing Canon 3B(7), Code of Judicial Conduct).  Candidate ethically could sign this portion of the pledge "so long as such a pledge is made 'subject to the requirements of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.'"  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-14 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discusses common campaign questions raised by sitting judge seeking re-election  [Added 5/21/08]

    In somewhat of a departure from its policy of not vetting proposed campaign literature, the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed several questions raised by an inquiring judge because the questions "are capable of recurring" and the answers "will be of interest to other candidates now and in future contests."  The Committee summarized the questions and its answers as follows:

QUESTION 1:  "May a judge seeking re-election employ signs and other campaign materials depicting the judge wearing a robe?"

ANSWER 1:  "Yes."

QUESTION 2:  "May a judge’s campaign web site make reference to, and facilitate, the giving of financial and other support to the judge’s re-election effort?"

ANSWER 2:  "No, if the site is the judge’s personal web site.  However, a campaign web site may be created and maintained by a committee of responsible persons organized for the purpose of assisting the judge’s re-election efforts."

QUESTION 3:  "May the judge’s campaign materials include pictures of the judge with jurors and/or complimentary letters from jurors?"

ANSWER 3:  "Yes, so long as those jurors agree to the inclusion and any such letters are unsolicited and not the product of official judicial business."

QUESTION 4:  "May a judge’s campaign materials include pictures of the judge with colleagues and/or other officials, elected and non-elected, and if so should those materials include a disclaimer that the persons depicted have not necessarily endorsed or decided to support the judge?"

ANSWER 4:  "No, with respect to fellow judges.  Yes with respect to other officials, but a clear disclaimer is required."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-11 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addresses use of "judge" and judicial robe by judicial candidate who previously was circuit judge  [Added 5/21/08]

    A judicial candidate who previously served as a circuit judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee for an opinion on several questions relating to use of the description "judge" and of judicial robes in campaign materials.  The Committee's conclusions are summarized below.

-- A judicial candidate, who has retired from the circuit bench, may not use the title “Judge” in campaign literature, media releases, printed ads, or other media venues.  Because the candidate is not presently a judge, this would violate Canon 7A(3)(d)(ii) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  The candidate, however, may use the term “former judge” or “retired judge” in campaign literature, media releases, printed ads, or other media venues.

-- A judicial candidate, who has retired from the circuit bench, may not use a judicial robe in campaign literature, media releases, printed ads, or other media venues.  Use of photographs of the candidate wearing a robe would be permissible only if "the images were taken while the judge was on the bench and the literature makes clear that the photographs refer to the candidate’s prior service."

-- The candidate’s campaign may reproduce news articles (with the permission of the media source) that include editorials addressing the candidate as “Judge” or “Honorable” and that include photographs of the candidate prior to retirement, in a robe, and seated on the bench.  "The candidate should take adequate measures to emphasize that the articles and photographs refer to prior judicial service and are not intended to convey the impression that the candidate is currently serving as a judge."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-10 (Election).

    NOTE:  The Committee applied a similar analysis to judges who have retired from the circuit bench and currently holding senior status.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-13 (Election).

Judge's parents may not send out letters supporting judge's re-election bid and soliciting campaign funds  [Added 4/4/08]

    Judge plans to run for re-election.  Judge's parents would like to mail out letters to friends and acquaintances supporting Judge's candidacy and soliciting campaign contributions.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether this would be ethically permissible.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  Judges may not personally solicit campaign funds.  Canon 7C(1), Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  Judges must "encourage members of the candidate's family to adhere to the same standards of political conduct in support of the candidate as apply to the candidate."  Canon 7A(3)(a).  A judge's family, of course, includes parents.  "Definitions" section, Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.

    The Committee also noted that it "does not render legal opinions regarding the constitutionality or enforceability of various provisions of the Code."  (See Weaver v. Bonner, 309 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2002) (provision of Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct that was substantially similar to Florida's Canon 7C(1) declared unconstitutional).)  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-09 (Election).

Judge whose spouse is running for non-partisan public office may not attend spouse's "meet and greet" campaign gatherings, even at judge's home.  [Added 9/25/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-13 (September 14, 2007).

Judge-elect may maintain law partnership bank account to receive outstanding fees during winding-up of partnership.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-31.

Judge who is not candidate may attend community-sponsored, non-partisan function in order to socialize and hear candidates' speeches.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2006-25.

Judicial candidate may use endorsement of retired judge in ads only if retired judge is not eligible for recall.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-24 (Election).

Not unethical for judicial candidate to accept and advertise endorsement from elected partisan official, if endorsement provided in official's individual capacity.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-21 (Election).

Judge running for re-election limited in using favorable remarks from juror questionnaires in campaign literature.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-20 (Election).

Ethically impermissible for judge to attend political function sponsored by political party, even merely as spectator.   Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-19 (Election).

Not unethical for judicial candidate to respond to questionnaires seeking candidate's views on certain political issues and recent court decisions.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-18 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines on questions presented by sitting magistrate who is running for judicial position.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-16 (Election).

Judicial candidate may not attend "round up" sponsored by political party women's group, where candidates are not invited to speak.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-15 (Election).

Judge's campaign ad may include family photo with spouse who is also a judge, but spouse may not accompany judge to campaign appearances.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-13 (Election).

Judge may not authorize placement of sign for partisan political candidate on property or auto owned by judge and judge's spouse.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-11.

Person who "pre-qualifies" for judicial race is "candidate" and thus may not serve as advisory to political party or accept party's help in gathering petition signatures.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-08.

Florida Supreme Court amends Judicial Code Canon 7 on public statements by judicial candidates concerning pending cases.  Amendment to Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7 (Political Activity), 897 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2005).

Improper endorsement for judicial candidate to attend church services with incumbent judge and be introduced as incumbent's "friend and guest."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-30 (Election).

Judicial candidate's letter seeking information about incumbent's health would be "campaign literature" and thus not subject to advisory opinion.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-25.

Judge ethically precluded from commenting on reasons for ruling on motion by election opponent, or on opponent's conduct in case, where case is pending before judge.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-19 (Election).

Unopposed judicial election candidate may attend and speak at political party club meetings, within bounds of Canon 7.  Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2004-11 (Election).

Judicial candidate may not directly or indirectly seek political party's endorsement, but may comment on disputed legal or political issues with appropriate qualifying language.  Florida Judicial Advisory Opinion 2004-09 (Election).

Judge publicly reprimanded for participation in partisan political events in violation of Florida law and Code of Judicial Conduct.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re: Carven D. Angel, 867 So.2d 379 (Fla. 2004).  NOTE:  The Court’s opinion did not address the constitutionality of the restrictions on a campaigning judge’s activity that are contained in Fla. Stat. sec. 105.071 and Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 7.  The Court, however, previously indicated that the decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) did not affect the validity of Florida's Canon 7.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re: Patricia Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2003).  Additionally, the Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has declined to address the constitutionality of the Code because doing so would be beyond its authority.  See Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2003-13.

Circuit judge running for re-election may not solicit lawyers for public or financial support despite Weaver v. Bonner.  Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-07 (Election).