Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Nos. 08-392 & 08-360 re Dempsey
Citations: 29 So. 3d 1030; 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 84; 2010 Fla. LEXIS 174Docket: No. SC09-1747
Court: Supreme Court of Florida; February 3, 2010; Florida; State Supreme Court
A stipulation for discipline in a judicial qualifications proceeding regarding Judge Angela Dempsey has been reviewed, focusing on misrepresentations made during her 2008 campaign for the Circuit Court judgeship. The Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) charged Judge Dempsey with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon 7A(3)(b) and Canon 7A(3)(d)(ii), for misleading advertisements and claims about her legal experience. Notably, she falsely advertised herself as "re-elect" Judge Dempsey despite being appointed in 2005 and misrepresented her legal experience as 20 years when she was not admitted to practice law until 1994. Judge Dempsey testified under oath, admitted to the misconduct, entered a stipulation with the JQC, waived a plenary hearing, and accepted a public reprimand. The JQC found that such conduct undermined public confidence in the judicial system and warranted discipline, including potential removal. The panel recommended a public reprimand, which this Court must now review for evidential support and appropriateness of the discipline. The Court has the authority to accept, reject, or modify the JQC's findings and recommendations based on the evidence presented. The case In re Andrews, 875 So.2d 441 (Fla. 2004), establishes that the clear and convincing evidence standard is more stringent than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasizes that while it gives significant weight to the findings and recommendations of the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), the ultimate authority lies with the court itself. When a judge admits to misconduct and the JQC's findings are uncontested, the court typically accepts these findings as supported by clear and convincing evidence. In this instance, Judge Dempsey admitted to the alleged misconduct, leading the court to conclude that the JQC's findings are similarly supported. Canon 7 prohibits judges and judicial candidates from engaging in inappropriate political activity, aiming to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and public trust in its impartiality. Misleading campaign materials, particularly those containing factual inaccuracies, are unacceptable, and judges are expected to adhere to higher ethical standards than lawyers due to their influential roles in the justice system. The court highlights previous cases where public reprimands were deemed appropriate for similar violations, indicating that the goal of disciplinary proceedings is to assess a judge's suitability to serve impartially rather than to punish them. Consequently, the court finds clear and convincing evidence supporting the charges against Judge Dempsey and orders her to appear for a public reprimand. The opinion notes a change in the numbering of Canon 7, acknowledging the renumbering that took place effective July 3, 2008. Judge Dempsey is held accountable for her actions, and the court's decision reflects a commitment to maintaining ethical standards within the judiciary.