STATE JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: TO AVOID "APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY" SPOUSE OF JUDGE MAY NOT SERVE AS CASE WORKER IN SAME DIVISION
ASST. COURT ADMINISTRATOR RULING WILL NOT BE APPLIED HERE
COURT OBSERVER: VERNON SHOULD ASK JEAC FOR OPINION, RATHER THAN WAIT FOR JQC INVESTIGATION
A recent ruling by the State Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (JEAC) may— or may not— affect the employment of Judge Susan Vernon's new husband. According to an article in the March 15, 2002, issue of the Florida Bar News, the JEAC has ruled that the spouse of an administrative judge may not serve as a case manager in the same division.
Alan Morris, a pretrial services officer here, married Judge Vernon last year. Reportedly, he often appears before her in court and makes recommendations, which she acts upon.
The pivotal issue here, the JEAC said, is the possible appearance of impropriety. The panel said the integrity and independence of a judge depends on his or her acting without fear or favor and public confidence may be diminished if it is felt that the judge is acting with favor in regard to the work and decisions of his case manager spouse.
"Real or not, the appearance of impropriety becomes an important issue," the panel said, noting that Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct says a "judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities."
KWTN asked both Judge Vernon and Chief Judge Richard Payne for comments. At presstime, Judge Vernon had not responded but Deputy Court Administrator Holly Elomina, presumably speaking for Judge Payne, said that the JEAC opinion does not apply here.
But a longtime court observer, who asked not to be identified, called that response "absurd".
"Hopefully, Judge Vernon will ask the JEAC for a specific opinion concerning whether or not her husband should be appearing before her in court— rather than wait for a complaint to the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) and a formal inquiry," the source said.
The opinions of the JEAC are advisory and conduct that is consistent with an opinion may be evidence of good faith on the part of the judge, but the JQC is not bound by the committee's interpretive opinions.