77 So. 3d 234
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petition seeks disqualification of a trial judge from 17 cases based on events in one adoption proceeding with media attention.
- R.M.C. filed a motion to disqualify in the adoption case over the judge's comments about media contact; an order of recusal followed.
- Attorneys for R.M.C. then moved to disqualify the judge in all other pending cases where they were counsel of record; judge denied as legally insufficient under rule 2.330.
- Petition for writ of prohibition seeks to quash the three adoption-case orders and disqualify the judge from the other sixteen cases.
- Appellate court reviews the motions de novo; it considers whether there is a well-founded fear of an unfair trial and whether blanket disqualification is warranted.
- Court holds prohibition is preventative and does not revoke existing orders; blanket recusal requests are disfavored, and the attorney’s comments in the adoption case did not mandate disqualification in the other cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adoption-case orders can be quashed | R.M.C. seeks prohibition to quash orders and extend disqualification. | Judge properly issued orders and recusal; prohibition inappropriate. | Prohibition denied for adoption case; judge disqualified herself there. |
| Whether there is legal basis to disqualify in other cases | Prejudice against counsel extends to all cases with same attorneys. | Cascone framework and case law do not support blanket disqualification. | Blanket disqualification denied; no valid basis for disqualification in all other cases. |
| Whether a blanket recusal request is improper | Filing recusal in every case shows prejudice to clients, not just counsel. | Targeted recusal requests are appropriate if legally sufficient. | Blanket recusal not countenanced; individual motions must be judged case by case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cascone v. Foster, 774 So.2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (general disqualification not granted)
- Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (prejudice toward counsel = prejudice to client)
- Ginsberg v. Holt, 86 So.2d 650 (Fla.1956) (no blanket decree restraining judge from hearing all cases)
- Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983) (reiterates no general disqualification; blanket requests discouraged)
- Morse v. Moxley, 691 So.2d 504 (Fla.5th DCA 1997) (prohibition not a corrective remedy to revoke orders)
- Peterson v. Asklipious, 833 So.2d 262 (Fla.4th DCA 2002) (de novo standard for reviewing motions to disqualify)
- MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990) (well-founded fear of prejudice required)
- Adkins v. Winkler, 592 So.2d 357 (Fla.1st DCA 1992) (burden on movant to show fear of unfair trial)