Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 12-613 Re: Laura Marie Watson, 174 So. 3d 364

Background

Laura M. Watson was a partner in a joint business arrangement with several PIP attorneys to represent health-care providers against Progressive; the firms agreed to share marketing expenses and to pursue both PIP and related bad-faith claims.
The PIP attorneys and separate “bad-faith” attorneys (Stewart and Hearon) collaborated; an agreement allocated attorney fees and contemplated bad-faith claims being asserted on behalf of hundreds of clients.
The PIP attorneys settled with Progressive in May 2004 for an aggregate amount releasing both PIP and bad-faith claims; the bad-faith lawyers were initially excluded from settlement negotiations and later awarded a fixed portion after objection.
Watson’s firm received over $3 million; clients received limited distributions and were not given closing statements, full disclosure of settlement amounts, or written allocations — and some clients executed releases without knowing the aggregate recovery or attorneys’ fee allocation.
The bad-faith attorneys sued; the trial court found the PIP attorneys violated professional conduct rules and awarded additional fees to the bad-faith lawyers; The Florida Bar pursued grievances leading to JQC charges after Watson became a judge.
The JQC found Watson violated multiple Rules Regulating Professional Conduct (including disclosure, conflict, aggregate settlement, trust/account rules, and conduct involving deceit) and recommended removal; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed removal, finding clear-and-convincing evidence of misconduct rendering her unfit for judicial office.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to discipline pre-judicial conduct	JQC may review and recommend discipline for lawyer conduct that occurred before becoming judge	Watson argued lack of JQC/Court jurisdiction over pre-judicial acts	Court: JQC and this Court have constitutional jurisdiction to review pre-judicial misconduct of a sitting judge
Violations of disclosure and client-accounting rules (closing statements, explaining settlements)	JQC: Watson failed to disclose aggregate offers, fee allocations, conflicts, and did not provide closing statements or required written client notifications	Watson: she complied with client contracts that addressed only PIP recovery; customary practice lacked closing statements	Court: Clear-and-convincing evidence Watson violated rules requiring client communication, closing statements, and disclosure
Conflicts and aggregate settlement requirements (representing clients with divergent interests; aggregate settlements without consent)	JQC: Watson participated in an aggregate settlement releasing bad-faith claims without adequate disclosure or consent and had adverse/co-interested representations	Watson: contended she did not contract with Stewart’s firm and lacked knowledge or involvement in the bad-faith settlement negotiations	Court: Rejected Watson’s assertions; found violations of conflict rules and aggregate-settlement prohibitions
Handling of disputed/ trust funds and deceitful conduct	JQC: Watson failed to treat disputed fees as trust property and engaged in deceit and dishonest conduct	Watson: disputed the characterization and involvement in the disputed distributions	Court: Found Watson violated trust/escrow rule and engaged in deceitful conduct; such conduct undermines fitness for judicial office

Key Cases Cited

In re Hawkins, 151 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 2014) (removal warranted when judge’s conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with judicial responsibilities)
In re Shea, 759 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2000) (standard for imposing removal as ultimate sanction)
In re Andrews, 875 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2004) (appellate review standard for JQC findings and disciplinary recommendations)
In re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2005) (JQC may investigate pre-judicial misconduct; conflicts in evidence resolved in favor of JQC findings)
In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1994) (clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard and review framework in JQC matters)
In re Graziano, 696 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1997) (definition and explanation of clear-and-convincing proof level)
In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2001) (discipline focuses on judge’s fitness to serve and public confidence)
In re Ford-Kaus, 730 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1999) (pattern of deceit undermines perception of judge’s truthfulness and warrants removal)
In re Hapner, 718 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1998) (removal can be imposed for misconduct occurring in part while the respondent was an attorney)