Judging the judges: A look at the JQC.

A married judge sent a spicy e-mail to a fellow judge suggesting they sneak down to Colombia, sip margaritas at their own private happy hour and do an exotic dance together signing it "Lover Boy."

Another judge was so angry that a death-penalty expert didn't appear for a trial -- even though he had been improperly subpoenaed by fax -- that she issued a bench warrant for his arrest. The expert, who was the guest speaker at a death-penalty conference, was mortified in front of a large group of attending lawyers when he was handcuffed by police and led away to a squad car that took him to jail.

In a separate incident, this same judge marched into another judge's trial, walked up to the court reporter who was busy taking down every word of opening statements and demanded that she immediately move her car improperly parked in her judicial assistant's spot. The trial was at a stand still while the court reporter left the courtroom in tears.

And yet another judge was so miffed a police officer gave him a ticket fort parking his green Corvette in a no-parking zone that he angrily spewed the "f-word" and told the cop he was a judge who'd be on the bench for four years and he'd have to deal with him-every time he came to court.

Such are the human foibles of Florida judges who -- fueled by arrogance, ignorance or a lapse of judgment -- cross the line of behavior expected of the judiciary, as detailed in the Code of Judicial Conduct. The agency charged with the duty of investigating complaints against judges is the Judicial Qualifications Commission made up of judges, lawyers and lay people.

Since a constitutional revision created it in 1906, the agency now housed in the Historic Capitol has been quietly going about its business with little funding, little public fanfare and generous help from its volunteer members.

Most everyone on the JQC agrees the system works pretty well at its mission to protect the public from judges who abuse their' power or help faltering judges see the errors of their ways. Statistically, the JQC appears to discipline a high number of the judiciary, compared with other licensed professionals in the state. Between 1990, when the state judiciary had 726 members, to 1999, when it had grown to 829, charges were filed by the JQC against judges 70 times. That means on average a bit under one percent of the judiciary each year faces JQC charges.

That compares with a typical Bar disciplinary rate of around 0.8 percent annually and about half or less for most professions regulated by the state Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Agency for Health Care Administration.

Overall, since 1970, the JQC has filed charges 118 times with the Supreme Court. Members added that does include several cases where judges resigned once they learned the JQC was investigating them.

Out of about 500 complaints received each year, about 400 don't belong at the JQC at all, such as disagreements with how a judge ruled in a particular case.

Bifurcated Agency

But there are some new administrative challenges brought by a 1996 constitutional amendment that separates the investigative/prosecutorial function of the JQC from the hearing panel that decides whether formal charges are warranted. The bifurcation was imposed to address concerns that the same people who investigate the complaint also sit in judgment. Now, the problem is that while the investigative panel meets monthly, the hearing panel may go long stretches without meeting at all, and, as one JQC member said, "They feel like outcasts."

"It was a dumb idea to begin with," said Ninth Judicial Circuit Judge Frank Kaney, who has served on the JQC for 11 years and is also dean of the Florida Judicial College.

"It was something to scream about, particularly when you had the Supreme Court saying there was nothing wrong with it and it didn't violate...