TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – In two separate opinions released last week, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded both a Broward County judge and an Orange County judge.
In a May 8 ruling, the state’s high court accepted an amended stipulation and findings by the Judicial Qualifications Commission that Broward County Judge Mardi Levey Cohen should be suspended without pay for 10 days.
The commission is an independent state agency charged with investigating “allegations of judicial misconduct and disability,” according to its website.
Cohen, in response to charges by the commission, admitted she engaged in conduct that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct during her 2022 reelection campaign.
Cohen agreed with the commission’s recommended discipline, according to the state Supreme Court opinion.
The court, in its brief, four-page order, explained that the charges stemmed from two acts of misconduct.
First, Cohen had “disseminated unverified information” that accused her opponent in the 2022 campaign of fraud. Cohen did so after receiving an email from a person “claiming to be a relative” of her opponent, according to the order.
Next, Cohen retaliated against a church where her opponent had campaigned, the opinion states.
Cohen filed an Internal Revenue Service complaint challenging the church’s tax-exempt status. According to the opinion, after filing the complaint, she sent the church a copy “with a false return address of ‘IRS EO Classification,’ suggesting that the correspondence was from the IRS itself.”
“Without minimizing the seriousness of Judge Levey Cohen’s misconduct, the Commission found as mitigating circumstances that the judge admitted her misconduct, accepted responsibility, and cooperated with the Commission in all respects,” the justices wrote.
“We accept the Commission’s evaluation of Judge Levey Cohen’s responsiveness and contrition.”
The justices ordered Cohen to appear before them to administer a public reprimand.
A reprimand, in the legal sense, is a form of disciplinary action imposed after formal charges, declaring the conduct of a lawyer or judge as improper. While it can have consequences, it’s typically less severe than a sanction or contempt of court.
The court also agreed to reprimand Orange County Judge Martha Adams, in a separate order also issued May 8.
According to the order, Adams violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct through “biased, impatient, undignified, and discourteous behavior [toward] the staff and management of the Ninth Circuit State Attorney’s Office.”
“The parties agree that, while presiding over criminal cases in her court, Judge Adams directed rude and intemperate comments at members of the State Attorney’s Office,” the justices wrote in the unanimous opinion.
“She called one assistant state attorney an ‘ass’; talked about making the life of one State Attorney’s Office employee ‘a shambles’; and said that the State Attorney’s Office was conspiring to remove her from the bench and that therefore she would have to start ‘being a ‘bitch’ in her rulings.”
The Canons of Judicial Conduct, the high court explained in its three-page order, generally require judges to “uphold the integrity of the courts,” but also “demand that judges treat parties respectfully and impartially.”
“Judge Adams’ comments are well outside the bounds of what is acceptable for members of our judiciary,” the justices wrote.
While such behavior typically would require more than a public reprimand, the court noted that Adams has had no similar complaints and maintained a “clean disciplinary record” throughout her 17 years of prior judicial service.
“The Commission also found that Judge Adams has expressed deep regret and apologized in writing to the individuals directly affected by her misconduct,” the justices wrote.
“We accept the Commission’s determination that, given this mitigation, discipline short of a suspension is sufficient.”