The Florida Bar v. Lanell Williams-Yulee
138 So. 3d 379
| Fla. | 2014Background
- Lanell Williams‑Yulee ran for Hillsborough County County Court (Sept. 2009) and signed a fundraising letter personally soliciting campaign contributions; she reviewed and approved the letter.
- The letter used the term “Public Defender” (her correct title was assistant public defender) and linked to her campaign website; no other candidate had yet announced when she signed the letter.
- The Florida Bar charged Williams‑Yulee with violations of Rules 3‑4.3, 4‑8.2(b), 4‑8.4(a), and 4‑5.3(b) based on the solicitation letter and an alleged misrepresentation to a reporter that there was no incumbent.
- A referee found she violated Canon 7C(1) (prohibiting personal solicitation by a judicial candidate) and recommended guilt on rules 4‑8.2(b), 3‑4.3, and 4‑8.4(a), and a public reprimand; the referee found mitigating factors and no aggravators.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the referee’s findings: it upheld guilt under rule 4‑8.2(b) (Canon 7C(1) solicitation ban) as constitutional and narrowly tailored, reversed the findings of guilt under rules 3‑4.3 and 4‑8.4(a) for the alleged newspaper misstatement (insufficient evidence), and approved the public reprimand and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Canon 7C(1) solicitation ban | Bar: Canon furthers compelling state interests (judicial integrity, public confidence) and is justified. | Williams‑Yulee: Ban infringes First Amendment speech (personal solicitation), not narrowly tailored. | Canon 7C(1) is constitutional; serves compelling interests and is narrowly tailored (requires committees, leaves ample alternatives). |
| Violation of Rule 4‑8.2(b) (personal solicitation) | Bar: Williams‑Yulee personally solicited funds in letter, violating Canon 7C(1). | Williams‑Yulee: She believed Canon applied only if there were competing candidates; argues constitutional challenge. | Court approved referee: she violated rule 4‑8.2(b); constitutional challenge rejected. |
| Alleged misrepresentation to reporter — Rules 3‑4.3 & 4‑8.4(a) | Bar: Newspaper reported Williams‑Yulee said there was no incumbent; this was a misrepresentation and professional misconduct. | Williams‑Yulee: She testified she said the incumbent had not announced; reporter’s testimony not produced. | Court disapproved referee: insufficient competent, substantial evidence to support misconduct findings. |
| Appropriate discipline | Bar: Public reprimand appropriate given conduct. | Williams‑Yulee: No misconduct or sanction warranted. | Court approved public reprimand and costs based on negligence, mitigating factors, and precedent/standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Turner, 76 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2011) (procedural/related First Amendment challenge context)
- In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2003) (Florida recognizes compelling interest in preserving judicial integrity and public confidence)
- In re Code of Judicial Conduct (Canons 1, 2, & 7A(1)(b)), 603 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1992) (prior restrictions on judicial political activity upheld to protect impartiality)
- In re Fadeley, 802 P.2d 31 (Or. 1990) (upholding similar solicitation ban; emphasizing appearance of impropriety and committee alternative)
- Simes v. Ark. Judicial Discipline & Disability Comm’n, 247 S.W.3d 876 (Ark. 2007) (acknowledging compelling interests in impartiality and public confidence)
- Wersal v. Sexton, 674 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2012) (federal court upholding solicitation restrictions)