In an interesting twist in the judicial misconduct case against Florida First District Court of Appeal Judge Michael Allen, the Florida Supreme Court issued an order asking the Judicial Qualifications Commission to explain why it filed an ethics complaint against Allen, signaling a possible move toward dismissal in the controversy over his attacking a fellow judge in an opinion.
Allen was accused of conduct unbecoming a judge after he criticized Judge,Charles Kahn for not recusing himself from a case and then allegedly lying under oath by saying he had no animosity toward Kahn. For a prior entry, click here.
Kahn dissented in the decision of the appellate court in 2006 to uphold the conviction of former Sen. President W.D. Childers, who is accused of a wide array of corruption, including work with Pensacola lawyer Fred Levin, a former law partner of Kahn’s.
There was obvious bad blood between Kahn and Allen, but Allen testified that he had no animosity toward Kahn. It all seems a bit forced for a formal charge and the Supreme Court seems to questioning the basis or need for the disciplinary action.
For the full story, click here.
JT, it’s only my opinion of course, but a judge who files a formal complaint of misconduct simply because he was criticized by a fellow judge is taking hypersensitivity a bit too far.
And since we’re on the subject of judicial misconduct, just what IS the exact purpose of state judicial inquiry or qualifications commissions? I have to admit I’m more than a little confused. Until recently, I had labored under the illusion that such commissions were to inquire and review reports of judicial misconduct, whether they were sent by lawyers, fellow judges, or just average citizens. But it seems that some reports just don’t merit any investigation at all, unless they meet certain “criteria.” What that criteria is seems to vary with the person doing the reviewing.