Florida Supreme Court to decide judge’s fate

She is a judge who argues that her ethical lapses while running for office don’t mean she’s unfit for the job.

But the state’s judicial watchdog disagrees and now the Florida Supreme Court will decide Palm Beach County Judge Dana Santino’s fate.

Unlike other races for public office, campaigns for judge have rules against undignified comments and statements that appear biased. Santino admitted she crossed the line by calling her 2016 elecary tion opponent, a criminal lawyer, a defender of “murderers, rapists, child molesters.”

The Judicial Qualifications Commission argued Santino’s misconduct — what it condemns as “a win-at-allcosts-and-pay-the-finelater strategy” — shows she can’t be fair and impartial and needs to be removed.

“The prize for intentionally, and selfishly inflicting such damage on the judici- cannot be a judicial office,” wrote Alexander Williams, assistant general counsel for the independent agency based in Tallahassee.

A lawyer for Santino, 49, has asked the Supreme Court to reject the commission’s recommendation and instead impose a severe penalty, including a fine of at least $50,000 and the humiliation of a public reprimand.

Attorney Jeremy Kroll, a former Broward prosecutor, wrote that the Florida Constitution says judicial discipline

“is not designed to punish but to determine whether the jurist in question is presently unfit.”

On those grounds, he says Santino has shown — through testimony by various judges and lawyers — that she has been “a very good judge” with a “strong work ethic on the bench.”

Kroll also argued that removing Santino would be unprecedented in the state’s modern judicial history, “absent additional, noncampaign misconduct.”

He said Santino has been “genuinely remorseful” about “her significant mistakes during her campaign.”

“This proceeding will serve to have made her a better judge if this court would see fit to permit her to do so,” Kroll concluded.

The high court’s decision could come at any time.

Santino has been presiding over civil court cases, such as disputes involving amounts less than $15,000.

But the judicial watchdog’s lawyer says it only “makes sense” Santino would be on her “best behavior” and have a troublefree first year on the bench.

“Good behavior is the least that can be expected from a sitting judge,” Williams argued, pointing out she was warned about the campaign slip-ups at the time and “did not stop the inappropriate attacks on her opponent.”

Santino, a former guardianship and probate lawyer, testified at a hearing last summer that she “let down my better judgment” mostly due to the pressure of 17-hour campaign and work days.

She apologized and blamed her ethics mistakes on being a “political neophyte” who missed attending a “Judicial Candidate Forum” that teaches the rights and wrongs of running for judge. She said she got bad advice from her campaign manager.

“I was not in any way, shape or form trying to win at all costs,” Santino said.

But Sumter County Circuit Judge Michelle Morley, chair of the Judicial Qualifications Commission panel overseeing the case, rejected Santino’s assertions. Morley wrote Santino should be removed rather than paying a fine that could be seen as “the routine cost of doing business.”

“Her entire campaign was inflammatory and rife with innuendo,” Morley explained. “She repeatedly implied that representing persons charged with crimes was, by its very nature, dishonorable and antithetical to the public good.”

Santino’s lawyer has disputed the accusations of repeated misconduct, contending the violations happened in the final weeks of Santino’s runoff campaign against Gregg Lerman.

Williams, the Judicial Qualifications Commission lawyer, suggested Santino’s tactics seem to have helped her win on Election Day.

“That language appears to have resonated with the public, stoking fears of a judge who will be sympathetic to criminals and ‘soft on crime,’ ” he wrote.

After losing the election by 14,816 votes out of 482,714 votes cast, Lerman filed a complaint that Santino’s campaign attacks violated Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

One of the rules calls for judges or anyone campaigning for a seat to “refrain from inappropriate political activity” and maintain the dignity that comes with being a judge.

Kroll said that once Santino learned she was under investigation she “expressed complete contrition,” including apologies to the man she beat in the election.

Lerman is having none of it, and says Santino shouldn’t be allowed to “cheat to win.”

Santino