Fla. high court ousts county judge
Dana Santino is removed from office over attacks she made on defense attorney rival in 2016 vote.
WEST PALM BEACH — Palm Beach County Judge Dana Santino on Monday became the first jurist in county history to be booted from the bench when the Florida Supreme Court removed her from office for attacks she made against her opponent during her 2016 campaign.
In a 4-3 decision, the high court ordered the 50-year-old former guardianship and probate attorney to leave office by 5 p.m. Monday. But, as a practical matter, she never came to work that day.
Chief Palm Beach County Judge Krista Marx said she alerted Santino of the high court’s decision hours before it became public. Marx said she wanted to spare Santino the shock of learning her fate while she was on the bench, deciding evictions and civil cases where less than $15,000 is at stake.
“She’s obviously distraught and unhappy,” Marx said. Neither Santino nor her attorney, Jeremy Kroll, returned phone calls for comment.
The high court offered no explanation for its decision or why three justices — Charles Canady, Alan
Lawson and Ricky Polston — voted against Santino’s removal. The four who voted to oust Santino — Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince, R. Fred Lewis and Jorge Labarga — are generally considered the more liberal wing of the court.
In its one-paragraph order, the court promised a written opinion would follow.
But the reasons for Santino’s downfall aren’t mysterious. During the election, Santino was sharply criticized for blasting her opponent, defense attorney Gregg Lerman, for representing “murderers, rapists, child molesters and other criminals.”
A panel of the Judicial Qualification Commission, acting on a complaint filed by Lerman, subsequently found that Santino violated several rules of judicial conduct by denigrating the key role defense attorneys perform in the criminal justice system. It recommended her removal.
“Her entire campaign was inflammatory and rife with innuendo,” Sumter County Circuit Judge Michelle Morley wrote in September on behalf of the six-member panel. “She repeatedly implied that representing persons charged with crimes was, by its very nature, dishonorable and antithetical to the public good.”
Lerman said he was pleased the high court accepted the panel’s recommendation but questioned why it took so long. “Unfortunately, we had someone sitting on the bench for 18 months who had no business being there,” he said.
Still, he said, he is hopeful Santino’s removal serves as a warning to others who seek the bench. “Judicial candidates need to understand the rules and understand the law,” he said.
Like many people accused of transgressions, Santino was faulted not just for her statements, but for ignoring those who warned her that her comments were out of bounds.
When an ethics advisory commission of the Palm Beach County Bar Association advised her that her comments violated judicial canons, she told The Palm Beach Post: “I appreciate the opinion of the commission; however, as the commission itself discloses in their letter, it is just that — their opinion.”
Focusing on Lerman’s work, Santino’s political consultant also used inflammatory statements to vilify Lerman on a short-lived Facebook page. The consultant, Richard Giorgio, punched up Santino’s comments by adding a list of heinous criminals Lerman represented during his decades-long career.
While Santino tearfully told the JQC committee that she ordered Giorgio to take down the page after she learned about it from outraged attorneys, panelists said they didn’t buy her claims that she never saw it.
“It strains credulity to believe that Judge Santino never looked at the Facebook page she knew was going to be created,” Morley wrote. The ugly tone of Santino’s campaign and her refusal to rein it in exemplified a win-at-all costs attitude, the panel said.
Marx, who is chair of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, said Santino’s removal underscores the high court’s growing disenchantment with judges who behave badly. In the past, judges have escaped with a reprimand or a fine. In recent years, they have been removed from office.
“In the last couple of years, this Supreme Court has drawn a line that judges who misbehave will not be tolerated,” Marx said, adding that it is taking a similar hard line with lawyers. “The legal profession may want to sit up and take notice,” she said.
Santino’s removal means Gov. Rick Scott will get to appoint her replacement. Ironically, it was Scott’s insistence that he had the power to appoint a judge to the seat that paved the way for Santino’s election.
Lerman sued Scott to block the governor from selecting a successor to Judge Laura Johnson after she resigned to run for the circuit bench. Siding with Lerman, the Supreme Court agreed voters, not Scott, should pick Johnson’s replacement.
However, as part of that decision, it also ordered that a special week-long qualifying period be held so other candidates could enter the race. During that week, Santino filed to run against Lerman and plowed $126,000 of her own money into her campaign for the post that pays $138,000 annually.
Lerman said he has not decided whether he will seek Santino’s seat. Having successfully sued Scott, he said he isn’t sure his application would be received warmly.
As for Santino, her troubles aren’t over. Her removal from the bench automatically triggers an investigation by the Florida Bar, said Francine Walker, a spokeswoman for the agency that regulates lawyers. Santino will be investigated for possible “interference with justice,” a catch-all category used to determine if a judge’s transgressions also violated Bar rules, she said.
In several recent cases, judges who were removed from the bench were later also disciplined. Some have been disbarred, she said.