Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notice of Formal Charges
Notice of Formal Charges
Notice of Formal Charges
(PI
-~
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE,
\\ .
-. ...
.:.;-}
~
',:, ....... <'\
;..)
'
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Investigative Panel of the Florida
the majority of its members, pursuant to Rule 6(f) of the Rules of the Florida
Constitution of the State of Florida, finds that probable cause exists for formal
context:
the existing First District Court of Appeal courthouse in the fiscal year 2005-2006
2006 the Legislature appropriated $1,800,000 as fixed capital outlay costs for
expansion of the First District Court of Appeal and directed that the funds be
$33.5 million to issue bonds for the site development and construction of a First
District Court of Appeal facility on a portion of parcel 3 at the Capital Circle Office
Center. The Legislature required that the bond proceeds be placed in the public
facilities financing trust fund and that the buildings be constructed using
clear intent of the Legislature was that the entire project would be controlled and
managed by the OMS, with the attendant protection and budgetary restraint that
that your actions, as hereinafter set forth, violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.
After you became involved with the lobbying for funding of the new courthouse,
you also took a lead role in the building of the new courthouse for the First
the court building committee and later as Chief Judge. In your interactions with
OMS and its employees you failed to act with patience, dignity, and
courteousness that is expected of judicial officers at all times. In fact some OMS
employees expressed that in their interactions with you, they felt as is if you were
"beating up" on them. For example, when the project director raised legitimate
financial concerns about the project and the appearance of the building, you went
over his head to the Secretary of the Department and had him removed from the
project. When OMS personnel raised budgetary concerns with you, you brushed
them off with statements that you would simply return to the Florida Legislature
and obtain more money. Your actions were contrary to the legislative intention
marshal, Don Brannon, at the end of a fiscal year during the construction of the
account. At your urging, the Court decided on a divided vote to use that money
to buy all new desks, credenzas and furnishings for the court's law clerks, a
furniture order for approximately 45 desks. The marshal was troubled because
the cost of the law clerks' new desks exceeded that which the marshal had in the
past customarily spent on law clerks' furniture. The amount was more in line with
the cost associated with judges' furniture. One reason was that you wanted the
new furniture to meet the "color palette" at the new courthouse. You selected
representative of the Indiana furniture company came to the court and made an
offer to the building committee to send select members of the committee to visit
the factory in Indiana. No such visit occurred before you made the decision to
place the order. Once you made the decision, the marshal and deputy marshal
took Mr. Nettles to your office so you could make the final decisions as to how
the desks would be configured. Once those decisions were made, you asked Mr.
Nettles if the trip to Indiana was still available. Mr. Nettles was dumbfounded by
the request, but he asked how many judges would go. You told him it would be
you and no other judges and that you would take your son. Nettles told you that
he would check with the Indiana furniture company and relay their response.
Nettles later received word that you had decided to take your brother as well as
your son, and the offer was relayed to Nettles that you would pay for your
brother's expenses. Nettles reported this to the court's marshal. The then-Chief
Judge interviewed Nettles and then informed you that no personnel from the First
DCA would make such a trip to Indiana. Later, when you were running for Chief
Judge, the trip to Indiana became an issue in your campaign. You went to
Marshal Brannon's office, closed his door, and tried to intimidate him into
changing his story about the trip. When you failed to get the marshal to change
his story, you left the marshal's office "in a pretty big huff." During the meeting
with Brannon, you were neither dignified, nor patient, nor courteous. Instead,
you were coercive and intimidating. After that episode between you and
deteriorated, and once you were elected chief judge designate, Marshal Brannon
realized that your coercive and intimidating leadership style meant that Marshal
Brannon would not be able to work with you on the Court. On December 17,
2008, two weeks before you were to become chief judge, Marshal Brannon
date of March 31, 2009. Giving his notice of resignation at that time was a
financial detriment to Marshal Brannon because it cut short his five year
participation in the DROP program, but he did so because he knew he would not
be able to work under your intimidation and coercion. When you became chief
judge, just as Marshal Brannon had anticipated, you froze him out, isolated him
and humiliated him during the January 1 to March 31, 2009, period leading to his
formal retirement. You also shut down any business relationship that existed
between your court and Stan Nettles and Executive Office Furniture in retaliation
for their involvement with the proposed trip to Indiana. You later falsely stated to
the deputy marshal that no such trip was ever under consideration.
a closed door meeting with Marshal Don Brannon in an effort to coerce him into
changing his story about the Indiana trip, your relationship to the deputy marshal
also deteriorated. You threatened the deputy marshal, you barked at her, you
were discourteous to her, you were not dignified in the way you treated her, and
you were impatient. When the current deputy marshal was promoted into that
job, you did not want her in that position, but you were overruled by the then
chief judge and the then-marshal. Nevertheless, when you became chief judge,
you saw to it that the deputy marshal did not get the raise she would normally
6. After Don Brannon retired as marshal on March 31, 2009, the court
hired a new marshal, Steve Nevels, from Atlanta, Georgia. The new marshal
took office on May 28, 2009. The marshal's office is responsible for the budget
for the court, and when there is a court conference of First DCA judges, the
marshal reports to the judges regarding the budget. Because of your desire to
implement the e-filing system at the court, you became overly involved in the
routine court budgetary process. In an effort to gain this objective, when the new
Marshal arrived for duty on May 28, 2009, you usurped the budgeting function of
the Marshal's office, deprived the Marshal of full participation in it and you
personally made the periodic budget reports to your fellow judges. You
manipulated the court's budget and you misled your fellow judges by not
disclosing to them what you were doing with the budget. Your financial
manipulations made it difficult for the Marshal's office to manage the budget, and
intimidation and the barking of orders at them. You attempted to require the
Deputy Marshal to doctor the budget by omitting information from it, but she
refused. On one occasion you demanded that the deputy marshal buy you a
bottle of vinegar. The purpose was to clean your personal coffee pot. The
deputy marshal refused, but you demanded that you be shown in writing why she
,
could not buy you a bottle of vinegar. She showed you that she was not
authorized to purchase personal items for individuals. Even though she refused
to buy you a bottle of vinegar, you continued to mention it to her and to harp on
but before the new marshal arrived on May 28, 2009, you directed the deputy
marshal to destroy an entire file cabinet of documents. The file cabinet was a file
in which the former marshal, Don Brannon, had retained historical budget
building. The contractor had promised that the new system would actually pay
for itself in electrical savings. The project was coordinated with the Comptroller's
Office. The contractor had to make regular reports about savings to the court.
• The Marshal's correspondence with the First DCA judges and with
particular reference to the selection process for the architect and the contractor.
The deputy marshal resisted the destruction of these files, but you insisted,
overruled her, and the files were destroyed. You therefore directed the
courthouse.
Olive v. Maas, 911 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). On remand from the First
DCA to the trial court, the trial court entered further orders that the parties again
appealed to the First DCA, which on May 12, 2006, certified certain questions to
After the First District certified the Olive case to the Florida Supreme
First District Court of Appeal, to assist your son in preparing the brief for the
appellant, Roger Maas, in the Florida Supreme Court. On September 25, 2008,
the Florida Supreme Court decided the case of Maas v. Olive, 992 So. 2d 196
(Fla. 2008).
Your use of your law clerk in this fashion was a misuse of a state asset for
the benefit of your son, and lit was completely improper for you to assign your law
clerk, who was on the court at the time your court certified the case to the Florida
Supreme Court, to assist one of the parties in preparing a partisan brief in the
your court.
people to gain your objectives without regard to the propriety of the means
improper use of the prestige of your judicial office. A judge is obligated to act at
all times in a manner that promotes the public confidence in the judiciary.
Your conduct relative to the construction of the new First DCA courthouse has
brought the entire judiciary of the State of Florida into disrepute, has inflicted
substantial harm upon the entire state court system and has therefore demeaned
Conduct as follows: Canon 1 (impairing the confidence of the citizens of the state
in the integrity of the judicial system and in you as a judge); Canon 2A (respect
for and compliance with the law); 3B (4) (patient dignified and courteous to those
with whom a judge deals in an official capacity); 3B (5) (manifest bias through
words or conduct; 3B (7) (according all parties the right to be heard); and 3B (8)
the office of judge; and would warrant discipline, including but not limited to
reprimand, fine, suspension with or without pay, lawyer discipline or your removal
You are hereby notified of your right to file a written answer to these
charges within twenty (20) days of service of this notice upon you. The original of
your response and all subsequent pleadings must be filed with the Clerk of the
Wallace Pope, Special Counsel, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, Florida 33757, Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel for
Florida 32303, and Lauri Waldman Ross, Counsel to the Hearing Panel, Ross &
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSI N
B.
FBN #: 124449
and
Michael L. Schneider
General Counsel
Florida Bar No. 525049
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
(850) 488-1581
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of
Investigation has been furnished by certified Mail #7160 3901 4173 8052 to the
Honorable Paul M. Hawkes, Jr., First District Court of Appeal, 2000 Drayton Drive,
561775
11