Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 15-200 Re John Patrick CONTINI, 205 So. 3d 1281

Background

Judge John P. Contini (Seventeenth Judicial Circuit) took office Jan 2015 and sent an ex parte email during March 2015 Judicial College to the Broward Public Defender’s Office proposing a template order; he did not initially copy the State Attorney’s Office and only circulated the order to state attorneys a week later.
The State moved to disqualify Contini from pending criminal cases; Contini denied the motion as legally insufficient.
The Attorney General petitioned the Fourth District for a writ of prohibition seeking disqualification from 962 cases; the Fourth District issued a show-cause order that effectively froze Contini’s criminal division. Contini did not recuse or seek administrative transfer while the matter was pending.
During August 11–12, 2015 hearings, Contini lost his temper in open court, made belittling and impertinent remarks about prosecutors (including naming an assistant AG), threatened contempt, and ordered an attorney escorted from the courtroom.
The JQC investigated, Contini admitted wrongdoing, apologized, accepted responsibility, and agreed to remediation (mental health treatment and mentoring); the JQC recommended a public reprimand with conditions (apology letter, mentoring for three years, stress management program, and assessment of costs).
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the JQC findings, concluded the violations were supported by clear and convincing evidence, and approved the recommended public reprimand and conditions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Contini’s ex parte email violated the Code of Judicial Conduct	JQC: ex parte communication to public defender without timely notice to State violated Canon prohibitions on ex parte contacts	Contini: email was general, unrelated to a specific case, and not intentionally prejudicial	Court: Violations established; admission supports clear and convincing evidence; sanction appropriate
Whether Contini should have recused or sought transfer when his division was effectively frozen	JQC/State: impartiality might reasonably be questioned; failure to disqualify or transfer left division frozen and impaired proceedings	Contini: hoped for personal vindication and denied disqualification motion as legally insufficient	Court: Failure to recuse/seek transfer violated disqualification standards; misconduct established
Whether Contini’s courtroom outbursts violated judicial canons on civility and comments affecting proceedings	JQC: belittling insults, naming and chastising absent assistant AG, threats of contempt and escorting attorney violated Canons requiring patience, dignity, and avoiding comments affecting pending matters	Contini: conceded he personified incivility and offered no excuses; expressed remorse	Court: Conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), 3B(9); clear and convincing evidence supports findings
Appropriate discipline for admitted misconduct	JQC: public reprimand with conditions (apology, mentoring, stress program, costs) given mitigating factors (new judge, remorse, cooperation)	Contini: accepted JQC recommendation and agreed to conditions	Court: Approved JQC recommendation; public reprimand plus conditions warranted given misconduct and mitigation

Key Cases Cited

In re Watson, 174 So. 3d 364 (discussing clear-and-convincing review of JQC findings)
In re Collins, 195 So. 3d 1129 (admissions of wrongdoing ordinarily support findings)
In re Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334 (admissions and JQC findings treated as persuasive)
In re Maloney, 916 So. 2d 786 (weight to JQC findings when supported)
In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398 (ultimate discipline decision rests with the Court)
In re Flood, 150 So. 3d 1097 (review of recommended discipline)
In re Shea, 110 So. 3d 414 (public reprimand plus conditions for repeated courtroom incivility)
In re Schapiro, 845 So. 2d 170 (pattern of belittling conduct warranting discipline)
In re Holder, 195 So. 3d 1133 (ex parte communications can be violations even if well-intentioned)
In re Eriksson, 36 So. 3d 580 (mitigating factors considered in discipline)
In re Frank, 753 So. 2d 1228 (procedure for administering public reprimand)
In re Hawkins, 151 So. 3d 1200 (expectation of high ethical standards for judiciary)