Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 16-496 Re: Philip James Yacucci, Jr., 228 So. 3d 523

Background

Judge Philip J. Yacucci Jr., a St. Lucie County (Nineteenth Judicial Circuit) county court judge since 2002, had a protracted, adversarial relationship with attorney Stephen Smith that included contempt findings, litigation, and a public altercation during a judicial election.
During and after the 2014 election, Yacucci made public disparaging statements about Smith, filed Bar complaints, and obtained and litigated injunctions and defamation claims related to campaign communications.
Yacucci initially recused from Smith‑related cases for ~2.5 years but later refused further recusals in a criminal case (State v. Harracksingh), filing unsolicited responses that detailed his disputes with Smith.
Smith and other parties petitioned for writs of prohibition and disqualification; the circuit court ultimately granted a writ disqualifying Yacucci from several matters.
The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) charged Yacucci with violating Canons 1, 2A, 3B(8), 3B(9), and 3E(1); the JQC hearing panel found violations and recommended public reprimand, 30‑day suspension without pay, an ethics course, and payment of costs.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the undisputed JQC findings, approved the recommended discipline (including a 30‑day suspension), ordered costs and an ethics course, and set a public reprimand; Justice Pariente concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing for at least a 90‑day suspension.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (JQC)	Defendant's Argument (Yacucci)	Held
Whether Yacucci violated the Code of Judicial Conduct (Canons 1, 2A, 3B(8), 3B(9), 3E(1))	JQC: Yacucci’s repeated public disparagement, refusals to disqualify, unsolicited pleadings and attempts to influence proceedings demonstrated partiality and violations of the cited canons	Yacucci: Denied inappropriate conduct; defended actions as necessary to protect judicial independence and counter perceived misconduct by Smith	Court: Findings undisputed and supported by clear and convincing evidence; violations affirmed
Whether recusal obligations were breached	JQC: Multiple refusals to recuse despite legally sufficient motions and a longstanding personal dispute created a reasonable fear of partiality	Yacucci: Claimed he had recused previously long enough and argued he was protecting judicial integrity; sought appellate guidance instead of recusal	Court: Yacucci repeatedly breached recusal duties; disqualification in several cases was appropriate
Whether Yacucci’s public comments and filings improperly interfered with fair proceedings	JQC: Televised disparagement and unsolicited filings tainted proceedings and undermined public confidence	Yacucci: Argued statements were truthful and justified by larger concerns about campaign influence and judicial independence	Court: Public statements and filings were improper, exacerbated appearance of bias, and violated canons
Appropriate discipline (extent of suspension)	JQC: Recommend public reprimand, 30‑day suspension without pay, ethics course, and costs	Yacucci: Conceded most recommendations but argued 30‑day suspension is excessive	Court: Approved JQC’s recommendations including 30‑day suspension; concurrence would impose at least 90 days

Key Cases Cited

In re Renke, 933 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2006) (Court may accept, reject, or modify JQC findings and recommendations)
In re Woodard, 919 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2006) (standard: clear and convincing evidence to review JQC findings)
In re Diaz, 908 So.2d 334 (Fla. 2005) (undisputed JQC findings ordinarily meet clear and convincing standard)
In re Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2003) (Supreme Court has ultimate responsibility for judicial discipline)
In re Flood, 150 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 2014) (court reviews recommended discipline for appropriateness)
In re Holloway, 832 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2002) (30‑day suspension where judge repeatedly confronted others and engaged in ex parte conduct)
In re Albritton, 940 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 2006) (30‑day suspension for pattern of intemperate judicial conduct)
In re Shepard, 217 So.3d 71 (Fla. 2017) (90‑day suspension for deceptive campaign conduct without remorse)
In re Contini, 205 So.3d 1281 (Fla. 2016) (public reprimand, no suspension where judge admitted wrongdoing and showed remorse)
In re Davey, 645 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1994) (admission of wrongdoing and remorse can mitigate discipline)
In re Eriksson, 36 So.3d 580 (Fla. 2010) (judicial independence does not permit judges to act as they please)
In re Graham, 620 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1993) (improper methods not justified by acceptable motives)
In re Decker, 212 So.3d 291 (Fla. 2017) (longer suspensions where misconduct includes campaign violations and dishonesty)