Opinion
SC2024-0284
05-09-2024
Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 2023-153 re: Hon. John Beamer
Upon consideration of the Judicial Qualifications Commission's Findings and Recommendation of Discipline and the parties' Stipulation, the Court accepts the Stipulation and approves the proposed sanction, a public reprimand.
The Stipulation indicates that the charges against the Respondent "relate to delays in rendering timely orders, and a failure to appropriately document cases [the Respondent had] under advisement as required by Rule 2.215(f) of the Fla. R. Gen. Prac. &Jud. Admin." The Commission's Findings and Recommendation of Discipline note that "this matter involved dozens of cases and significant delays in rulings and orders," and that the Respondent "was counseled repeatedly without result." The Commission also noted, however, that the Respondent immediately accepted responsibility for his conduct; cooperated with the Commission's Investigative Panel; and, both before and after receiving a notice of investigation, took steps to address the backlog of pending matters.
In the Stipulation, the Respondent admits that his conduct violated Canons 1, 2, 3B(8), and 3C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3B(8) says that a judge "shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly." Canon 3C(1) requires a judge to "diligently discharge the judge's administrative responsibilities" and to "cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business."
We therefore hold that Respondent shall receive a public reprimand, which will be accomplished by publication of this order.
MUNIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.