Miami Judge Facing Ethics Charges Over TV Show Claims JQC Violated First Amendment
The Judicial Qualifications Commission alleges this judge's participation in courtroom television violated ethics rules. But the judge claims its real motive was to stop the show and keep cameras out of courtrooms.
May 27, 2020 at 04:05 PM
4 minute read
Miami-Dade County Court Judge Carroll Kelly, facing ethics charges for participating in a courtroom television show, has struck back at the Judicial Qualifications Commission with allegations that it violated the First Amendment of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions by trying to stop production.
The show, "Protection Court," featured real-life litigants from the court's domestic violence division. The JQC claimed Kelly's participation violated six judicial canons, alleging she gave litigants "minimal notice" and misled her superiors about the filming.
But the judge alleged its real motive was to stop the show and deter judges from allowing cameras into courtrooms — a violation of rights to free press and free speech.
In an answer brief filed Tuesday, Kelly's Miami attorney David Rothman argued she did nothing wrong, noting that she sought and relied on an advisory opinion from the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee before taking part. The brief said that opinion found the question was "a matter of judicial administration, rather than judicial ethics."
The brief said Kelly also looked to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, a Florida Supreme Court opinion and JEAC opinions from Texas, New York and Rhode Island, and consulted with counsel for the Miami-Dade Circuit and other attorneys.
While the JQC accused Kelly of lending the prestige of her office "to advance the private interests" of herself and others, the jurist said that wasn't true.
"Judge Kelly's only motivation for being involved in this program was to educate and show people how domestic violence court works and how the court can help families involved in violence," Kelly's brief said. "Judge Kelly has not been compensated in any way for her participation in the filming of this program."
Kelly denied misleading Chief Judge Bertila Soto about the show and denied misleading investigators about her authority to stop production. Kelly argued the JQC took her words out of context, as she had said she could stop her own participation in the show, not the show itself.
The brief also accused the JQC of breach of contract and breach of good faith, attaching a letter from September 2019 in which it agreed to drop charges against Kelly if she stopped taking part in the show.
The judge claimed she reluctantly accepted but that the JQC refused to close the case after Protection Court aired previously filmed footage. The JQC then allegedly asked Miami-Dade Circuit Court if it would file a lawsuit over the show, but the court declined.
'Fake news'
The 104-page answer brief featured multiple exhibits, including a court filing that said Kelly was "stunned and distraught" when she found out about the investigation and a response to the second notice of investigation that said Kelly believed people should see how domestic violence court works and that the allegations have "decimated a terrific person."
"Based upon the tone and tenor of Judge Kelly's first appearance before the commission, it is clear the commission feels strongly Protection Court is, like Judge Judy, fake news and detrimental to the perception of the judicial system by the general public," Kelly's response to the second notice of investigation said. "And, based upon the course set by the commission, the fact this amended notice was even filed, and that it contains allegations either previously resolved or utterly without merit, it is just as clear the intent of the commission is to stop the broadcast."
In response to allegations that Kelly gave litigants "minimal notice" before presenting them with a release form, the brief said multiple signs in English and Spanish were posted inside and outside the courtroom explaining the filming, and that two victim advocates were on-hand to let people know they didn't have to sign.
Some litigants who didn't consent were still filmed, but Kelly noted that was not a violation of Florida law because court proceedings are public and said footage of those litigants wasn't aired.
JQC counsel Alex Williams did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Kelly has moved to enforce a settlement agreement with the JQC over the show and asked the court to drop two related counts with prejudice.
Read Judge Kelly's answer brief:
Read more:
Miami-Dade Judge Who Took Part in a Reality TV Show Is Now Facing Ethics Charges
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
© 2025 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 AllMeta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension
4 minute readExecutive Assistant, Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation, Sues Florida Healthcare Entrepreneur
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
- 2The Importance of Judicial Elections
- 3Ephemeral Messaging Going Into 2025:The Messages May Vanish But Not The Preservation Obligations
- 4Decision of the Day: Trial Court's Sidestep of 'Batson' Deprived Defendant of Challenge to Jury Discrimination
- 5Is Your Law Firm Growing Fast Enough? Scale, Consolidation and Competition
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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