3/26/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FF""_ b00N 9.7 PAGE 695 Fourth District Court of Appeal, which held that Circuit Court Judges could not appoint County Judges on .a long-term basis as acting Circuit Judges. Since the Attorney General's Office was involved in the appeal of the criminal matter itself that office declined to provide representation to Judge Vocelle for him to appeal the adverse ruling. Our office felt that either the Fourth District Court of Appeal was correct or that there was no precedent for County representation of a Judge in criminal court appeals, and Buck Vocelle, therefore, represented Judge Vocelle in an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. Early this year the Supreme Court by a 4 to 3 vote ruled in favor of Judge Vocelle's position, leaving Buck Vocelle to ask that a small portion of his expenses be reimbursed by the County. The bill is attached in the amount of $2,739.50. S-ince*Buck Vocelle's appearance before the Board 18 months ago, our office has developed a policy for representation of the Chiaf Judge la i:iie future if that is ever necessary. The policy is as follows: 1. The Chief Judge of the Circuit would notify the Board of County Commissioners that representation is necessary. 2. The County Attorney would review the case and determine if the County Attorney's Office should represent the Judge or whether outside counsel should be hired. 3. If outside counsel is to be hired, the Chief Judge would be asked if he has any preference for counsel. 4. The County would negotiate with the Chief Judge's preferred counsel to see if a reasonable contract for attorney services could be agreed to. 5. If an attorney is not hired, Steps 3 and 4 shall be repeated until an attorney is hired. Based on the recommended procedure in the foregoing paragraph, it is our office's recommendation that Indian River County reimburse the law firm as requested, and we further recommend that the procedure suggested be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners 'in the unlikely event that this set of circumstances ever recurs. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the law firm of Clem, Polackwich & Vocelle be reimbursed in the amount of $2,739.50, and that the policy developed by the County Attorney's Office and the Chief Judge's Office be adopted by the Board for future use. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by' Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved reimbursement to Clem, Polackwich & Vocelle in the amount of $2,739.50, and the policy developed by the County Attorney's Office and the Chief Judge's Office, as set out in the above memo. 18 MARCH 26, 1996