Is Gov. Scott Trying to Quickly Appoint Conservative South Florida Judges Before Leaving Office?
Attorneys are divided on whether political considerations are at play as the Third District Court of Appeal Judicial Nominating Commission prepares to send its list of nominees to Gov. Scott to fill the vacancies left by the resignations of Chief Judge Leslie Rothenberg and Judge Richard Suarez.
October 24, 2018 at 04:17 PM
6 minute read
Following two days' worth of interviews, the Third District Court of Appeal Judicial Nominating Commission is poised to announce the names it's submitting to Gov. Rick Scott to fill vacancies on the appellate court at any moment.
However, amid a heated election cycle and a renewed focus on how Florida judges reach the bench, some are speaking out about the mechanism for judicial nominations and appointments.
The public was notified Sept. 26 that Chief Judge Leslie Rothenberg and Judge Richard Suarez would be resigning from their posts prior to the end of their terms in 2019. Consequently, the Third District Court of Appeal Judicial Nominating Commission announced it would be convening to review submissions and applications to fill the newly created vacancies.
With an application deadline of Oct. 15, aspiring appellate judges only had 19 days to assemble their resumes and prepare for interviews taking place only one week later.
According to Miami attorneys Marcos D. Jimenez and Lilly Ann Sanchez, this expedited process is nothing unusual. In addition to sitting on the Third District Court of Appeal Judicial Nominating Commission, both attorneys have also chaired the commission within the last decade.
“When I was on the JNC we did it really quickly. It was usually pass the names to the governor's office right after the interviews,” Jimenez told the Daily Business Review. “It might not be incredibly right after, but really close.”
“The fact that the names are coming out today from interviews over the past two days is status quo,” Sanchez said. “That is how we do it because the interviews are the last piece of the puzzle and the process.”
Sanchez noted that the quick turnaround time between interviews and nominations was for the sake of keeping conversations with prospective candidates “very fresh in the minds of the commissioners.”
“What I will tell you is unusual about these two positions is that there is generally a longer period of time from the time the applications are submitted to the time the interviews are conducted, especially for appellate positions,” she added. “What was a little abbreviated here was the time frame to give the public notice for those that applied and giving the commissioner to get in touch with references and thoroughly vet all of the applicants.”
However, others perceive Rothenberg and Suarez's resignations, as well as the ensuing nomination process, as part of a larger debate over the ability of the Florida governor to have an outsized say in judicial appointments.
Jimenez noted that “it's really the governor's office that takes the time to interview the candidates and select the person or persons for the position.”
|'It's Suspect'
The governor's ability to shape the bench has been highlighted by outgoing Scott's conflict with the Florida Supreme Court over his ability to select the Judicial Nominating Commission's nominations to replace three outgoing state supreme court justices.
Philip Padovano, a former circuit and appellate judge who served on the First District Court of Appeal, told the Daily Business Review that these vacancies might be part of a larger trend to keep Florida courts conservative. Padovano noted that Rothenberg and Suarez's resignations caught his eye since they will be resigning shortly before their terms ended.
“It's suspect to say the least,” Padovano, who is now a private practitioner, said. “I don't want to say that it's widespread, but every year there are a handful of judges who want to rig the system to make sure that their successor is appointed either because they prefer the appointment system to the election system, or they want to make sure the incumbent governor gets to pick. I don't think that's a decision that should be in the hands of outgoing judges.”
Padovano said he has litigated several cases where trial judges have resigned shortly before the end of their terms, thereby circumventing merit retention and qualifying periods. He refers to this as “a manipulation that's designed to convert an election into an appointment.”
Padovano also asserted this trend has correlated with an increased politicization of the Judicial Nomination Commission, who provides the list of judges from which the governor selects appointments. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that barring a tainted selection process, the governor must pick from the commission's nominations.
“When it started it was perfectly neutral and perfectly fair,” Padovano said of the JNC's origins in the 1970s. He noted the JNC's original composition — three people chosen by the Florida Bar, three people picked by the governor and a subsequent three selected by the commission itself — changed under the tenure of former Gov. Jeb Bush.
“The Legislature changed it,” according to Padovano. “Now the governor gets six picks, the Florida Bar gets three picks that they recommend to the governor, but the governor can refuse any of those picks as many times as he wants.”
“So the governor gets to pick all nine people on the nominating commission,” Padovano added. “And the history has shown that Gov. Scott has rejected more than 100 names.”
Padovano said he believes “we should change the way the nominating commissions are constituted,” or alternatively, “give up this charade, and let the governor pick who we wants.”
Even in light of the criticism by Padovano and others, many maintain their full faith in the system for state judicial appointments as they stand.
“I'm proud of my time and service on the JNC, and having been on the JNC I know how seriously the commissioners take their position,” Sanchez said. “And I'm fully confident — always — that all applicants are properly vetted and we have very good judges on the bench.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readBig Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic About M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250