Miami Judge Faces Public Reprimand for Courthouse Disturbance with Visitors
The judge confronted several of the guests in the lobby and threatened to hold them in contempt for being loud.
July 27, 2020 at 11:14 AM
4 minute read
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge David C. Miller's reaction to a noisy group of guests in the courthouse could land him a public reprimand.
His discipline case revolves around Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Altfield's Jan. 17 investiture, after which the Judicial Qualifications Commission claimed Miller inappropriately confronted guests who had gathered in the courthouse lobby.
Their chatting interrupted a tobacco trial Miller was presiding over, according to a report JQC Chair Krista Marx issued late Friday. The report said lawyers, judges and other witnesses saw Miller "yelling and waving his arms at the people in the lobby while trying to get them be quiet."
Miller allegedly confronted a guest who shook her head at him, remarking, "Do not shake your head at me," then threatening to hold her in contempt and demanding to know who she was. That guest is an assistant general counsel to the Miami-Dade Circuit, according to Marx's report, which said the incident lasted about two minutes.
Marx's report said that, before leaving his courtroom, Miller first sent his bailiff to address the problem, following complaints from plaintiffs and defense lawyers who said they were "yelling" at witnesses. When that didn't work, the judge reportedly sent the court clerk and the bailiff to the lobby—but to no avail.
That's when Miller took matters into his own hands, according to the report, which relied on courtroom video footage and said the noise he created ironically interrupted another judge's tobacco trial. When the shouting and arm waving didn't work, Miller then reportedly went from group to group explaining that he was conducting a trial.
Marx wrote that Miller's conduct, "including his inappropriate threat of contempt, plainly fell below the high standard of conduct required by the canons and this court." The report said the episode resulted in three ethical violations governing the integrity and independence of the judiciary, promoting public confidence, and being patient and courteous.
Miller has admitted violating the canons and conceded his conduct was inappropriate, according to a stipulation he signed.
The judge represented himself in the discipline proceedings, according to online case files. Miller declined to comment.
As for the employee who shook her head, Miller claimed he'd taken that as an indication that she wouldn't comply but in hindsight conceded it could have been in disbelief.
"The commission is particularly disturbed by Judge Miller's repeated threat to hold one of the people in the lobby in contempt for shaking her head in disbelief over Judge Miller's behavior," Marx's report said. "Judge Miller had other options available for dealing with the disruption to his trial, such as taking a recess or calling court administration to ask for assistance. The method he ultimately chose to employ reflected poorly on himself, and the judiciary as a whole."
Marx recommended a reprimand for Miller, pointing to cases that ended with reprimands for similar behavior, including one for a judge who threatened a police officer with contempt when noise from their radio interrupted his lunch.
This is Miller's first discipline case in more than 20 years on the bench and 20 years as an attorney, according to the report, which also noted that he's agreed to avoid contact with the employee he threatened with contempt and to "avoid attending investitures where that individual might be present."
The Florida Supreme Court can choose to accept or reject the JQC's recommendation.
|Read the report:
Read more:
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'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Will 2025 Bring a Change to Lawyers' Mandatory Pro Bono Duties Under 'Madden'?
- 2Wholesale Real Estate Transaction Transparency and Protection Act Takes Effect Jan. 4: What You Need to Know
- 3Decision of the Day: 'Attorney's Eyes Only' Protective Order Denied; Good Cause Not Demonstrated
- 4The Crypto Guys Seem to Like Paul Atkins as a New SEC Commissioner, but Will He Be Good for the Securities Industry?
- 5Lawsuits, AI Accuracy and Debt: Legal Tech Companies that Ran Into Trouble in 2024
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