Miami-Dade County Court Judge Accepts Suspension for Ethics Violations
Miami-Dade County Court Judge Maria D. Ortiz has agreed to harsher sanctions for accepting free hotel stays with her husband, Mariano Fernandez, a former government official, after claiming at an evidentiary hearing that she rarely checked her financial statements and receipts because Fernandez took care of their joint account.
October 30, 2018 at 01:13 PM
4 minute read
Miami-Dade County Court Judge Maria D. Ortiz has agreed to harsher sanctions in an ethics case brought by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
The judge faced allegations she accepted free hotel stays with her husband, Mariano Fernandez, former director of Miami Beach's building department, who alleged took them as bribes to speed city permits for Spain's RIU Hotel Group.
The JQC charged Ortiz with ethics violations in May, while her husband lost his job and faces corruption charges.
Related: Miami Judge Faces Ethics Charge Over Free Hotel Stays Tied to Husband's Corruption Case
In June, the Florida Supreme Court rejected Ortiz's prior stipulation agreement, in which the JQC had recommended a public reprimand and $5,000 fine.
But under the revised stipulation, Ortiz will cover the JQC's court costs and serve a 30-day suspension without pay, in addition to the fine and public reprimand.
The JQC conceded in its response that despite Fernandez's alleged criminal conduct, it would likely be unable to prove the judge intentionally violated the judicial canons. It stands by its claim that Ortiz was negligent.
'I Always Lived Very Frugally'
The case against the judge hinges on whether she was aware her family received valuable gifts, including free local and international hotel stays from RIU Hotel Group.
According to an affidavit from Ortiz's husband, the judge's paycheck went into a joint account that he controlled until May 2018.
The JQC quizzed Ortiz about the trips at her examination hearing, where she claimed she'd only just opened her own account — one week before testifying. Before then, the judge said her husband controlled the finances and reviewed the bills for credit cards she said she used to pay for the trips. She said she never knew the hotel offered a 100 percent discount on the family's vacation expenses.
Ortiz said that she'd “tried” to open her own account years ago, when she almost got divorced, but “it was such a battle” that she opted out.
“I should have taken it out then and taken over my finances, and I wouldn't be here today,” Ortiz said before the JQC.
Click here to read the JQC's response to Ortiz' revised stipulation
The affidavit bolstered Ortiz's claims that she never paid attention to credit card statements and receipts and didn't know that hotel stays in Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Miami Beach were free.
“I never worried about amounts. I always lived very frugally. That was the way it was,” Ortiz said at the hearing.
According to Ortiz, she only checked her financial statements if she “would get a call that there was fraudulent activity, which is rare.”
Ortiz fielded questions about her adult children and their friends, who accompanied her and her husband on some of the trips. According to her testimony, she paid for their stays, and gave her personal credit card to hotel staff on at least one occasion.
This raised a red flag for JQC attorney Alex Williams, who pointed out that one receipt referred to a “special discount” of “100 percent” and asked Ortiz, “You handed your credit card over to pay for $986 worth of hotel fees, and your testimony to the commission so far is that you never checked to see if that actually went through. Is that correct?”
Ortiz claimed she didn't remember the cost being $986 but said, “If that's what it is, I signed it and gave it to them.”
Williams did not respond to a request for comment before deadline.
When asked to specify who and what she paid for, Ortiz revealed she covered expenses for one of his son's friends, Ralph, who hadn't brought enough money with him for the hotel stay.
Ortiz's lawyer, David B. Rothman of Rothman & Associates in Miami, declined to comment on the case.
Ortiz has admitted that she failed to “take reasonable steps” or “make specific inquiry” about how the trips were paid for, according to the revised stipulation.
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 All'Final Countdown': SEC Launches Nearly 800% Litigation Surge in October
3 minute readSt. Thomas University Settles With Fired Professor Who Had Alleged Academic Freedom Violations and Discrimination
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Steward Health CEO Saga Signals Escalation of Coercive Congressional Oversight Against Private Parties
- 2'They Should Have Tried to Negotiate': Jury Finds Against Insurer
- 3Expert Testimony Regarding Sexual Grooming
- 4Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Law Firms Shrink From 'Performative' Statements
- 5Legaltech Rundown: DeepL Launches AI Translator, BigHand Upgrades Intelligence Software, and More
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