The Jacksonville Bar Association’s Professionalism Committee created the Judicial Sanctions Information Collection (JSIC) Subcommittee to increase the Bar members’ awareness of unprofessional conduct that judges frown upon.
Perhaps if attorneys realize the extent of the judges’ displeasure, there would be more of an effort to avoid doing these misdeeds.
The subcommittee has obtained information from 29 State and Federal trial court judges in Jacksonville. This collection of data could not have been accomplished but for the assistance of John P. Cole, Abraham I. Bateh, Tonia Yazgi, Mary Bland Love, and E. Lanny Russell. Much gratitude is also owed to Kirk McCombs II, who chaired the subcommittee for the first two years.
The judges repeatedly complain about behavior that generally falls under one of three categories: court appearances, deceit/carelessness and lack of respect for the judiciary. These will be covered individually in a three-part series under the Professionalism Column.
Here are the Top 10 most annoying unprofessional acts taken from the first category,
court appearances:
1) being chronically late;
2) totally missing court dates (a more frequent occurrence since PDAs became popular);
3) failing to call the judge’s chamber when running late or missing a hearing;
4) failing to inform the judge’s chamber as soon as a case settles or a hearing is canceled (thus precluding others from scheduling matters during that allotted time and wasting the court’s time from unnecessary work on the case);
5) faxing instructions to the Traffic Court instead of appearing in court;
6) requesting a continuance at a hearing rather than prior to the hearing;
7) perpetually “passing” criminal cases for improper reasons (e.g., to generate billing, to delay, etc.);
8) initiating inappropriate ex parte communications about substantive matters during a brief scheduling matter;
9) directing comments to opposing counsel rather than to the court; and
10) continuing to argue to the court after a ruling has been made (a major pet peeve).
Although such misconduct does not rise to the level that justifies an imposition of sanctions, it does, at the very least, leave the judges with a lasting, negative impression of the lawyer. We hope that the generous time and efforts provided by the judges and the subcommittee is instrumental in preserving the professionalism and good reputation of lawyers in our community.
—If you would like to write an article
about an ethical or professionalism
experience that others in the Bar may
learn from, please contact Caroline Emery, chair of the Professionalism Column,