Court: Judge Allen deserves to be punished

First District Court of Appeal Judge Michael E. Allen deserves a public reprimand for criticizing the conduct of a fellow judge, says the Judicial Qualifications Commission which also dismissed two additional charges. It will be up to the Florida Supreme Court to decide what, if any action, is taken against Allen.

In a 23-page opinion, the JQC had strong praise for Allen as "an excellent, hard working judge, with an otherwise unblemished reputation who has rendered extraordinary service to the State of Florida.'' But his criticism of Judge Charles J. Kahn Jr. for participating in a case involving former Senate President W.D. Childers crossed the line and caused people to question the integrity and impartialty of the court, the JQC panel ruled.

In a highly unusual move, the panel also suggested that Kahn's own conduct as described by several witnesses at Allen's trial might deserve another look by JQC investigators.

Kahn was forced to resign as chief judge in 2007 and other judges discovered he was having an affair with a court clerk. At Allen's trial, Kahn admitted calling Fred Levin, a close friend of Childers to advise him of Allen's critical comments on the day the Childers opinion was released. Kahn was a Levin law partner when he was appointed to the court in 1991.

Bruce Rogow, the Fort Lauderdale lawyer who represents Allen, said he was disappointed at the recommendation for a reprimand but surprised 0Aand pleased that the panel had some nice things to say about the judge and that they raised questions about Kahn's conduct.

--Lucy Morgan, Times Staff Writer

Comments

Please post the opinion.

There needs to be a thorough house cleaning at the DCA. They live and act s if they are little kings!

[JasonR]

Wow, those judges don't take criticism well. I notice they didn't dispute the accuracy of Judge Allen's allegations.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Judge Michael Allen is being persecuted.

Shame on the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Isn't it an attack on the integrity of the ENTIRE COURT for a judge to question the motives of his associate judges to decide to hear a case en banc? Especially when that en banc decision soundly rejected the decision of the 3 judge panel to reverse a criminal conviction where the defendant could not be retried because the state's essential witness died?

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/08/08-618/Filed_04-18-2008_JQC_Response_Attachment.pdf

[Bonnie Russell]

The recent actions of Florida’s Judicial Qualifications Commission and the inaction of Judge Paul Blackman before finally rendering a nonsensical opinion, to be so rich, that Molly Ivins would be killing herself to cover it if she wasn’t already dead.

What better demonstration for the need of a citizens oversight group than Florida’s black robed girly men pouncing on Judge Michael Allen for doing his job? The final opinion of the court was that Judge Allen had two motives; to protect the integrity of the court…and antipathy towards Judge Kahn. PICK ONE. I’m telling you if she were alive, Molly Ivins would blow out of Texas faster than tumbleweed during a hurricane and hit Florida like a gale force wind for the sheer, unmitigated joy over covering this farce.

I have a question: Does the JQC require random drug testing for themselves?

Long story short? Judge Allen I hope, files a timely appeal.