Judge Woody Clermont
The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission has recommended that a Broward County judge be publicly reprimanded for intervening in legal proceedings involving a friend of his who had been charged with domestic violence.
The case of Judge Woody Clermont advanced to the state Supreme Court on Aug. 29 after the commission published its findings and a recommendation that Clermont be publicly reprimanded before the high court.
In April, the judge appeared at the Broward County Courthouse to advocate for a friend that he has known for 32 years, according to the commission’s Notice of Formal Charges. Clermont spoke to an assistant state attorney about the case, and the prosecutor indicated he would recommend that the defendant receive a small monetary bond with conditions.
After Clermont provided mitigating information, however, the prosecutor recommended a non-monetary bond, according to the commission. Before the presiding judge, Clermont went on to advocate for the defendant and provide character testimony in a bid to persuade the presiding judge to accept the recommended bond, the panel said.
“By appearing, advocating and voluntarily providing un-subpoenaed character testimony for this personal friend, you lent the prestige of your judicial office to advance the private interests of another and practiced law while a judge, in violations of Canons 1, 2A, 2B and 5G of the Code of Judicial Conduct,” the Notice of Formal Charges states.
Canon 2 specifies that “a judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment” and that “a judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.”
Clermont created an appearance of impropriety by engaging as a character witness and lending the prestige of his office to advocate for the private interests of a friend, the commission’s findings state.
The findings indicate that during an appearance before the commission’s investigative panel, Clermont acknowledged that his actions represented violations of judicial conduct.
“Finally, he has agreed that these charges are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and that he should receive the recommended discipline,” the findings say.
The commission stressed that it had no proof that the state attorney’s decision to reduce the severity of his bond recommendation, or the presiding judge’s decision agreeing with the recommendation, were swayed by Clermont’s status as a judge.
“However, the commission believes the appearance of impropriety in this case is strong,” the commission’s court filing states. “So strong, in fact, that the presiding judge at the first appearance immediately reported the incident to other judges, who, in turn, informed Judge Clermont that he should report himself to the commission, which he did.”
The commission also indicated that the judge cooperated with the panel’s investigation and expressed sorrow that his conduct may have affected the public’s view of the judiciary’s ethics.
“The commission believes that this sanction will be sufficient to deter such behavior by Judge Clermont in the future, and to remind the judiciary of the requirements of Canons 1, 2 and 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,” the commission said.
Clermont’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment about the judge’s conduct.
