[align=left]
- 11 -

Barnes admitted that the petition constituted a detailed criticism of his colleagues and that his motive for filing the petition was due to anger, frustration, and aggravation with his fellow judges.


In In re Kelly, a judge was publicly reprimanded for filing with the clerk of the circuit court a petition styled, "Petition to the Judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County" in which the judge suggested court reforms and criticized court administration. 238 So. 2d at 567.6 This Court noted that the clerk's office "is not a receptacle for the ex parte grievance petition of a politician." Id. at 568. "Criticism is not neutral," and a judge's criticism will












6. For example, the judge argued in his petition:


The tremendous reduction in the number of prisoners between September, 1965, and September, 1966, is an excellent case in point for the purpose of showing the gross lack of administration of the Circuit Court in Pinellas County and the serious consequences of a poorly administered Court. . . .







. . . .


Virtually every phase of the criminal administration at the present time is burdened with inefficiency.


. . . .


Vast and important and much needed judicial reforms await only the interest and action by the judges of this circuit.


. . . .


The individual judges should impose additionally upon their secretaries in handling the administration and disposition of criminal cases and thus avoid the luxury of a secretary of the Criminal Administrator or Presiding Judge.


In re Kelly, 238 So. 2d at 567-68.







- 12 -

ultimately be viewed as having been constructive or destructive of the public's perception of the judiciary. Id. at 569. This Court has also cautioned judges "against indiscriminately voicing their objection to the law lest they be misunderstood by the public as being unwilling to enforce the law as written, thereby undermining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." In re Gridley, 417 So. 2d at 954.



While perhaps not as egregious as Kelly or Gridley, Judge Barnes' petition is highly critical of the judiciary in St. Lucie County. For example, Judge Barnes argued that "[t]he First Appearance judges' procedures, approved by [the] Chief Judge . . ., do not meet the procedural and due process requirements set forth in the Florida Supreme Court's Criminal Rules of Procedure, Florida Statutes, case law, and the Florida and United States Constitution[s]." Judge Barnes also criticized the judges for not departing from the bonds set by other judges in warrant arrest cases, stating that "[t]he judges believe that `collegiality' prevents them from changing another judge's bond even though that was set without any input from the accused or their attorney, and with little or no information about the accused." Judge Barnes asserted further that the respondent judges were in violation of the laws governing first appearances and stated:





[T]he laws and rules cited above are not aspirational goals--they are clear, settled, mandatory, nondiscretionary requirements for booking officers, Public Defenders, State Attorneys, and judges to follow to insure that the accused have a fair determination of pretrial release. It







- 13 -

is unconscionable that these officers are incarcerating persons for not obeying laws through a procedure that does not itself follow the law.


Judge Barnes also specifically targeted one judge's rulings at first appearances by stating, generally, that the judge did not follow the law. Judge Barnes called for the judge's recusal from first appearances, stating that the judge had a conflict of interest because he was married to the public defender and because "Canon 3, Section E of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires his removal from this position."7


While we agree that much of the judge's criticism would not be subject to sanction if presented in another context, such as a discussion at a judicial conference, we agree with the JQC that the filing of the petition was inappropriate.


In sum, and as demonstrated above, the petition was highly critical of the local judiciary and its filing clearly crossed the line between what is appropriate and what is not. Accordingly, we hold that there is clear and convincing evidence to support the JQC hearing panel's findings and conclusions that Judge Barnes











7. It is clear from the record that Judge Barnes knew that filing the petition would result in a public attack on his fellow judges and would call into question the judiciary's integrity. In an email sent to the chief judge, Judge Barnes threatened to file a lawsuit if the chief judge did not take action in accordance with Judge Barnes' interpretation of Florida law. Judge Barnes then stated that he did "not wish to do this as it will add to the bad press you have already allowed us to get." (Emphasis supplied.)









- 14 -

inappropriately mounted public attacks against his fellow sitting judges in violation of Canons 1 and 2 when he filed the petition.










4. Count 6--Failure to Follow Proper Channels



As to count 6, the JQC hearing panel found that Judge Barnes failed to follow proper channels regarding the other judges' alleged misconduct in violation of Canons 1 and 2. Judge Barnes argues that his attempt to speak with his fellow judges was a failure, including his approach to the chief judge, who refused to interfere. According to Judge Barnes, he felt that in seeking a forum that had the jurisdiction and authority to order all of the involved entities to change, the Fourth District Court of Appeal seemed the only available choice. However, the JQC counters that Judge Barnes has never established that the Fourth District even had jurisdiction or legal authority to grant the extensive relief requested. Rather, it appears that Judge Barnes used the petition to make public his dispute with his fellow county judges when the chief judge failed to uphold his position.


A review of the mandamus petition reveals that there is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Barnes chose to go public but failed to follow proper channels regarding the other judges' alleged misconduct. We agree that it is questionable whether the Fourth District had the authority to grant Judge Barnes' extensive demands, including the recusal of judges and ordering the chief judge to remove another judge from presiding over first appearances. Accordingly, we hold that







- 15 -

there is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Barnes failed to follow the proper channels regarding the other judges' alleged misconduct when he filed the petition.





B. Discipline




While specifically acknowledging that Judge Barnes was primarily acting with good motives, the JQC hearing panel nevertheless recommends that this Court issue a public reprimand of Judge Barnes for his conduct described above and require him to pay the costs of the proceedings. Judge Barnes does not dispute that this is an appropriate recommendation for the types of violations the JQC hearing panel found. Accordingly, we approve the JQC hearing panel's recommendation.




We acknowledge that the JQC hearing panel specifically noted Judge Barnes' motivation and further noted that it was "simply not in the position of being able to judge who was right and who was wrong on these very important issues." Nevertheless, we note that even if Judge Barnes had disputed the recommendation of discipline, we would reject this claim because the JQC hearing panel's recommendation is appropriate when compared to the discipline imposed in other similar cases. In re Miller, 644 So. 2d 75, 78 (Fla. 1994) (approving recommendation for public reprimand where judge wrote two letters to the media criticizing the legal system in violation of the Code); In re Gridley, 417 So. 2d at 953-55 (approving recommendation for public reprimand where judge violated Code by advocating for another individual); In re Kelly, 238 So. 2d at 567, 573-74







- 16 -

(disciplining judge by public reprimand where judge filed a petition with the clerk of the circuit court criticizing the legal system in violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics). While we encourage judges to be active in seeking to improve the administration of justice, the strident and harsh manner of attack embraced by Judge Barnes combined with his choice of a public forum to attack particular judges and their practices clearly separates this case from legitimate attempts to improve the law. Such harsh public condemnation can only undermine public confidence in the justice system.


III. CONCLUSION




For the reasons stated, we approve the JQC's conclusion that Judge Barnes violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, and we approve the JQC's recommendation that Judge Barnes be publicly reprimanded and charged the cost of the proceedings. In accordance with the policy announced in In re Frank, 753 So. 2d 1228, 1242 (Fla. 2000), we hereby command Judge Clifford Barnes to appear before this Court for the administration of a public reprimand at a time to be established by the clerk of this Court.


It is so ordered.


QUINCE, C.J., WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., and ANSTEAD, Senior Justice, concur.


NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED.








- 17 -

Original Proceeding ­ Judicial Qualifications Commission Miles A. McGrane, III, Chair, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Coral Gables, Florida; Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; Marvin E. Barkin, Special Consulting Counsel to Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tampa, Florida; Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; John



R. Beranek of Ausley and McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida, Counsel to Judicial Qualifications Commission Hearing Panel,



for the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission


Donnie Murrell, West Palm Beach, Florida,


for Judge Clifford H. Barnes
[/align]