Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 13-25 re: Andrew J. Decker, III
212 So. 3d 291
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Andrew J. Decker, III was a practicing attorney who ran for and was elected circuit judge (Third Judicial Circuit); the JQC investigated pre-judicial conduct and, after an evidentiary hearing, the Hearing Panel found multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Key factual allegations proven by the Hearing Panel: (1) at a televised debate Decker stated he had never been accused of a conflict of interest though a Bar complaint had been filed months earlier; (2) at a partisan forum he publicly stated he was a registered Republican; (3) while representing clients in various foreclosure and bank-related matters he (a) concurrently represented Judge Paul Bryan without disclosing that relationship to opposing counsel in a separate case set for trial, (b) commonly represented three clients (Bryan, Dukes, Woodington) without proper conflict waivers and procured quitclaim deeds disadvantaging two clients, (c) filed bankruptcy pleadings for Judge Bryan containing inaccurate disclosures; and (4) in Compass Bank litigation he facilitated a confidential settlement with a party who was represented (disputed).
- The Hearing Panel found Decker guilty on Charges 1, 3, 6, 7, and consolidated 8–16 (but directed verdict/not guilty on other charges). The Panel recommended a 90‑day suspension, public reprimand, and payment of costs.
- This Court reviewed the record for clear and convincing evidence, affirmed most violations, rejected some findings relating to counsel‑represented communication and obstruction (Charge 8), but concluded the cumulative misconduct warranted a more severe sanction.
- The Court imposed a six‑month suspension without pay, a public reprimand, and payment of costs, but declined removal from office, finding no present unfitness to serve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Decker knowingly misrepresented during campaign that he had never been accused of a conflict | JQC: statement was false, uncorrected, violated Canons 7A(3)(e)(ii), 7A(3)(b) and RPCs 4‑8.4(c), 4‑8.2(b) | Decker admitted statement but disputed materiality/intent; argued inadvertence | Held: clear and convincing evidence of false statement; violation affirmed. |
| Whether Decker improperly announced party affiliation while a judicial candidate | JQC: public statement of Republican affiliation violated Canon 7C(3), Rule 4‑8.2(b), and §105.071(3) | Decker argued free‑speech concerns (not fully litigated before JQC) | Held: Court affirmed violation of Canon 7C(3), Rule 4‑8.2(b), and §105.071(3); constitutional challenge not reached. |
| Whether Decker’s silence about representing presiding judge in another case prejudiced opposing counsel | JQC: failing to disclose representation of Judge Bryan to Wells Fargo counsel was dishonest/misleading and prejudicial to administration of justice | Decker argued case likely to settle and Judge Bryan’s role was ministerial—no benefit conferred | Held: clear and convincing evidence that nondisclosure misled opposing counsel; violations of RPC 4‑8.4(d) and 4‑8.4(c) affirmed. |
| Whether Decker’s common representation and related actions created impermissible conflicts | JQC: failed to explain risks/obtain written waivers, procured quitclaims, continued representation after conflicts arose, made improper use of information | Decker claimed benign motives (avoid liens, facilitate settlement), inadvertent omissions, and that clients had other counsel for bankruptcy | Held: clear and convincing evidence of multiple conflict and candor violations (4‑1.7, 4‑1.7(c), 4‑3.3, 4‑1.9(b)); withdrawal required when conflicts arose. |
| Whether Decker violated Rule 4‑4.2 and related rules by meeting secretly with represented party (Charge 8) | JQC: secret meeting/settlement with Job White (who was represented) violated 4‑4.2, 4‑3.4(a), 4‑8.4 provisions and Rule of Discipline | Decker asserted White told him he was unrepresented and he had no duty to further investigate; evidence that White unequivocally said he was not represented | Held: Court rejected the Hearing Panel’s finding on 4‑4.2 and related obstruction/dishonesty findings because evidence established White told Decker he was not represented and no concealment was proved. |
| Appropriate sanction for cumulative violations | JQC: recommended 90‑day suspension, public reprimand, costs | Decker accepted JQC recommendation; argued against removal | Held: Court increased sanction to a six‑month suspension without pay, public reprimand, and costs; declined removal given no present unfitness and limited demonstrable harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Turner, 76 So.3d 898 (Fla. 2011) (standard: clear and convincing burden for disciplinary findings)
- In re Graziano, 696 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1997) (discussion of evidentiary standard)
- In re Henson, 913 So.2d 579 (Fla. 2005) (JQC jurisdiction over pre‑judicial attorney conduct)
- In re Watson, 174 So.3d 364 (Fla. 2015) (JQC authority to investigate pre‑judicial acts of sitting judges)
- In re Davey, 645 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1994) (JQC investigatory/remedial scope over prior acts)
- In re Renke, 933 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2006) (review of recommended discipline)
- In re Rodriguez, 829 So.2d 857 (Fla. 2002) (example of more severe sanctions for multiple campaign violations)
- In re McMillan, 797 So.2d 560 (Fla. 2001) (framework for assessing judge’s fitness to serve)
- In re Murphy, 181 So.3d 1169 (Fla. 2015) (factors for removal vs. other discipline)
- The Florida Bar v. Feinberg, 760 So.2d 933 (Fla. 2000) (discusses caution when dealing with individuals who may be represented; distinguishing facts where counsel remained of record)