EMBARRASSED JUDGE ‘NOT DISQUALIFIED’ FROM JOB, LAWYER TELLS COMMISSION

• A Jacksonville judge is facing a conduct investigation for a series of unguarded remarks made in multiple cases.
• The judge's attorney stated he regrets his wording but is still fit to hold judicial office.
• The Judicial Qualifications Commission found the judge may have violated 11 parts of Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Potential disciplinary actions range from a written reprimand to removal from office, with the final decision made by the Florida Supreme Court.

A Jacksonville judge who called a woman an "entitled little snot" during a court hearing regrets his wording but is still fit to be a judge, his attorney has told Florida’s Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Circuit Judge Eric Roberson’s “conduct is not that of which he most proud,” attorney Scott Richardson wrote in a July 13 answer to commission charges against the judge involving a series of unguarded remarks in multiple cases.

Still, “his conduct has nonetheless not disqualified him from holding judicial office,” the lawyer added, suggesting that Roberson aims to continue his career as a judge.

An investigative panel from the commission concluded June 11 that Roberson might have violated 11 parts of Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct during exchanges with several people arguing cases before him.

During one hearing, the judge referred to a woman having a legal dispute with her father as an “entitled little snot” and "a terrible human being." The panel noted that transcripts showed the judge told the father "God bless you for not beating the tar out of her. Because she was spared the rod and good God is she spoiled."

The panel separately said Roberson “made remarks and issued findings that conveyed bias … without legal or factual support” in a different case.

In a third case, it faulted Roberson’s handling of a stalking complaint by a woman from another state whom the panel said the judge advised “there’s something seriously off with you ... and it’s a shock there hasn’t been criminal charges for this. Part of me wants to just ban you from ever coming back to our state.”

Richardson’s six-page letter on the judge’s behalf admitted a succession of specific comments the panel attributed to the judge but noted that the 5^th District Court of Appeal later upheld his rulings on two cases the panel mentioned.

Richardson argued the appellate findings “demonstrate that his statements do not constitute violations of the Canons of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.”

Richardson argued the judge hadn’t violated 10 of the judicial canons the panel cited. He didn’t comment on the 11^th, which says judges must be “patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity,” and will require the same of others.

The lawyer said Roberson’s “years of public service have demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law and to the integrity and independence of the judiciary,” and that moments the panel focused on “are not indicative of his conduct in the overwhelming majority of the matters over which he has presided.”

The judge's answer will matter when a hearing panel weighs whether to recommend disciplinary action against Roberson, although a final decision has to come from Florida's Supreme Court.

Judges can face a range of potential disciplines that include written reprimands, in-person reprimands from the high court, suspensions and removal from office.

When Roberson became a circuit judge in 2017, he was appointed to fill an opening created by his predecessor, former Circuit Judge Mark Hulsey III, resigning during an investigation of claims that Hulsey used racist, sexist language and misused staff attorneys.