June 24, 1994

(Opinion 94-25
(Publication of article
(commending those involved in
(high-profile trial


RE: Committee on Standards of Conduct Governing Judges
Your inquiry dated April 26, 1994

Dear Judge

You have requested an opinion from our Committee concerning your proposed publication of a laudatory comment concerning the efforts of many local officials. Specifically, you wish to give credit to many local officials and judges and attorneys who all cooperated in handling a particularly sensitive trial which could have resulted in tumultuous confrontation. Our committee members all agree that it would be appropriate and proper for you to publish this acknowledgement. Several members suggest that it would be more appropriate to delete the remartks concerning the lawyers and judges or at least to refer to them as trial counsel and presiding judge or other generic designations.

The committee is expressly charged with rendering advisory opinions interpreting the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to specific circumstances confronting or affecting a judge or judicial candidate. Its opinions are advisory to the inquiring party, to the Judicial Qualifications Commission and to the judiciary at large. Conduct that is consistent with an advisory opinion issued by the committee may be evidence of good faith on the part of the judge, but the Judicial Qualifications Commission is not bound by the interpretive opinions issued by the committee. Petition of the Committee on Standards of Conduct for Judges, 327 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976).

Very truly yours,


Nath C. Doughtie, Chairman
Committee on Standards of Conduct Governing Judges


cc: All Committee Members
Office of the Courts Administrator (name of judge deleted from this copy)

Participating members: Judges Doughtie, Farina , Goldstein, Green, Kahn, Patterson , Rushing, Taylor, Tolton and Edwards, Esq.