1974-092 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ab Respondent conduct court in Indian River County. 5. This matter was referred to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. 40 6. Pursuant to Rule 6 (b) RFJQC, Respondent was given Notice of Investigation on January 25, 1974, and in accordance with the same Rule he appeared before the Commission for approximately four and one-half hours on the same date. 7. On April 8, 1974, formal proceedings were instituted pursuant to Rule 7, RFJQC, and thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court suspended Respondent pursuant to Rule 8 RFJQC. 8. Excerpts from tape recordings of court sessions over which Respondent presided on April 24, June 6, June 12, June 27, and October 9, 1973, include comments made by Respondent which the Commission finds were rude, intemperate and which constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary. 9. In 1963, during a period when Respondent was having difficulty sleeping, his family physician prescribed a drug called Doriden. Respondent continued to take Doriden until four days before he had what was described as a "serious seizure" in October, 1973. The evidence before this Commission is that, contrary to promotional claims made in the early 1960's that Doriden was non -addictive, subsequent studies and experttestimony indicate it is. The evidence also indicates that Doriden often causes low tolerance, incoherence, confusion, depression and rambling. Respondent no longer takes Doriden, but is required to take medication daily to prevent seizures and to control hypertension. 10. Based on the evidence before the Commission, including the testimony of Dr. Paul Satts, Ph. D., and Dr. James L. Mason, M. D., the Commission finds that during most of 1973 through January 25, 1974, Respondent: (a) was going through a transitory period of disfunction, a manic episode or a series of manic episodes or (b) was a person with an obsessive personality who came under a great deal of emotional strain in early 1973, caused by the impending marriage of his daughter, the pressures of a new, unfamiliar and demanding position plus the cumulative effects of a very "bad drug". In either event, Respondent is apparently in control of his mental facilities and emotions at this time and no serious illness is expected in the future. Both doctors testified there is no evidence of brain damage. 11. Prior to assuming office in January 1973, Respondent turned all of the files from his law practice over to Attorney Kenneth Padgett and Respondent terminated the practice of law. Respondent neither sought nor received compensation for his law practice. Respondent stated he would not sell his former clients.In and September 1973, Respondent signed two petitions, prepared Y subsequently filed by Attorney Padgett in two estates. Respondent testified that he was under the mistaken impression that the Code of Judicial Conduct permitted him to close pending estates within a certain time period. other evidence supports Respondent's testimony.' (The Code of Judicial Conduct does permit judges to continue an executors of pending estates until September 30, 1975. 201 no. 2d 21 Al P. 33.) -2-