SC00-2510 Inquiry Concerning Judge Joseph P. Baker

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Supreme Court » 2002 » SC00-2510 Inquiry Concerning Judge Joseph P. Baker

State: Florida

Docket No: sc00-2510

Case Date: 02/14/2002

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC00-2510
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE
NO. 00-319
RE: JOSEPH P. BAKER
[February 14, 2002]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the finding of the Judicial Qualifications Commission
(“JQC”) that Judge Joseph P. Baker violated Canon 3B(7) of the Florida   Code of
Judicial Conduct, which prohibits ex parte and other communications outside the
presence of the parties.   The JQC recommends that Judge Baker be admonished as
a lesser sanction to public reprimand.   We have jurisdiction.   See art. V, § 12, Fla.
Const.   For the reasons expressed below, we approve the JQC’s finding.
It is undisputed that Judge Baker, while presiding over a trial   between
Universal Business Systems, Inc. and Disney Vacation Club Management
Corporation in May 1999, solicited communications from unnamed computer

consultants and experts concerning technical issues relating to the issue of damages
in the case pending before him without the involvement of the litigants or their
attorneys.1   However, Canon 3B(7) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct
expressly prohibits “ex parte communications, or [consideration of] other
communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a
pending or impending proceeding.”   Canon 3B(7) (emphasis added).   Moreover,
the commentary to Canon 3B(7) specifically provides that “[t]he proscription
against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from
lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the
proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted.” Commentary, Canon 3B(7)
1. Judge Baker admitted this fact to the JQC hearing panel, and the
Memorandum of Ruling drafted by Judge Baker expressly states that he
made a few inquiries of computer consultants and experts, describing
the general nature of [determining changes in software and the cost of
duplicating those changes] and asking if there were a practical way to
approximate the cost to a retailer to take the original UBS software and
bringing it up to the ‘modified version’ and use at Disney. . .                         .   They
[the consultants and experts] suggested that UBS must know the cost
of developing its own original software purchased by Disney.
At the JQC hearing, however, Judge Baker said he could not remember with whom
he talked or what they said, but also said that he had “since found out” that one of
people he talked with was his son-in-law and another was a friend of his; but, again,
he was not sure if there might have been others.
-2-

(emphasis added).2
Accordingly, we agree with the JQC that Judge Baker violated the express
language of Canon 3(B)7.   Therefore, in accordance with the JQC’s
recommendation, we admonish Judge Baker to comply with his oath as member of
the judiciary and to abide by the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon
3B(7).3
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding - Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission
Judge James R. Jorgenson, Chairman, Hearing Panel, Florida Judicial Qualifications
Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., General Counsel
2.                                                                                      Canon 3B(7) is followed by certain exceptions where, under limited
circumstances,   ex parte communications or other communications are permitted:
(1) communications on scheduling and administrative matters, or emergencies that
do not deal with substantive matters; (2) advice from disinterested experts on the
law; (3) contact with other judges or court personnel, (4) contacts with the parties’
consent in an effort to settle a case; and (5) other communications expressly
authorized by statute.   See Canon 3B(7) (a)-(e).   However, Judge Baker has not
asserted, and we do not find, that any of these exceptions apply.
3. The commentary to Canon 3B(7) specifically provides, “An appropriate
and often desirable procedure for a court to obtain the advice of a disinterested
expert on legal issues is to invite the expert to file a brief as amicus curiae.”
-3-

for the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tampa, Florida; and Charles P.
Pillans, III of Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe, Special Counsel to the
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Jacksonville, Florida,
for Petitioner
David B. King and Mayanne Downs of King, Blackwell & Downs, P.A., Orlando,
Florida,
for Respondent
-4-

Download sc00-2510.pdf