Florida’s Supreme Court delivered a powerful rebuke to attorneys who recklessly accused a judge of racial bias, suspending the lawyers for 30 days after their unfounded allegations led to death threats against the judge.
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys Jerry and Brooke Girley received 30-day suspensions for making unfounded racial bias accusations against a judge
- The judge had overturned a $2.75 million jury award in a racial discrimination case, leading to the attorneys’ public criticism
- The attorneys’ inflammatory social media posts and interviews resulted in harassment and death threats against the judge
- The Florida Supreme Court ruled the lawyers violated professional ethics by making statements “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Florida Supreme Court Takes Decisive Action Against Attorney Misconduct
The Florida Supreme Court has taken a firm stand against attorneys who publicly undermine the judiciary without substantial evidence. In a decisive ruling, the court suspended attorneys Jerry and Brooke Girley for 30 days after they made serious allegations of racial bias against Judge Kevin Weiss. The husband-and-wife legal team represented Kenyan doctor Baiywo Rop in a civil lawsuit against Adventist Health System, alleging wrongful termination due to discrimination. Though initially successful with a jury awarding their client $2.75 million, the case took a controversial turn when Judge Weiss later directed a verdict in favor of Adventist Health, effectively overturning the jury’s decision.
“Today in Orlando, Florida, a white Judge stole justice from a black doctor. After being awarded by a jury $2.75 million for discrimination, a judge reversed their verdict. We need help getting this out,” said Brian Girley.
Rather than pursuing proper legal channels to challenge the judge’s ruling, the Girleys took to social media and public forums, making inflammatory statements that the Florida Supreme Court determined crossed professional boundaries. Brooke Girley’s social media campaign included posts directly accusing Judge Weiss of racial prejudice, while Jerry Girley participated in interviews suggesting systematic bias in the judiciary. The court found these actions violated Rule 4-8.2(a) of the Florida Bar, which prohibits making false statements about judges, and their Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar.
Serious Consequences for Unfounded Allegations
The Girleys’ public campaign against Judge Weiss had dangerous real-world consequences. Following their inflammatory public statements, Judge Weiss received numerous harassment messages and death threats, necessitating additional security measures. This troubling outcome factored heavily into the Supreme Court’s decision to impose discipline. The justices emphasized that while attorneys have First Amendment rights, those rights do not extend to knowingly or recklessly making false statements about members of the judiciary, especially when such statements undermine public confidence in the legal system.
The court specifically rejected the Girleys’ due process claims and found substantial evidence that their public statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth. Notably, the court found no factual basis supporting their allegations of racial bias against Judge Weiss. The Supreme Court’s ruling sends a clear message to the legal community about the boundaries of professional conduct and the importance of maintaining respectful discourse, even when disagreeing with judicial decisions.
Protecting Judicial Independence and Integrity
This case highlights the delicate balance between attorney advocacy and judicial independence. While zealous representation of clients remains a cornerstone of the legal profession, the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes that such advocacy must occur within ethical boundaries. By imposing 30-day suspensions on both Jerry and Brooke Girley, the court demonstrated its commitment to protecting the integrity of the judicial system from unfounded attacks that can erode public trust in the courts.
“The $2.75 million that was taken by the stroke of a judge’s pen, that was a theft, a theft to the community,” said Jerry Girley.
The ruling reinforces that attorneys seeking to challenge judicial decisions have numerous proper avenues available, including appeals, motions for reconsideration, and formal complaints through established channels. By choosing instead to launch a public campaign alleging racial bias without substantial evidence, the Girleys violated their professional obligations. The case serves as a potent reminder that attorneys, as officers of the court, have special responsibilities to uphold the rule of law and maintain the public’s confidence in judicial institutions, even when facing unfavorable rulings.
