Florida’s Supreme Court delivers harsh punishment to lawyers who falsely accused a judge of racial bias, resulting in death threats against the judiciary.
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys Jerry and Brooke Girley received 30-day suspensions for making unfounded racial bias allegations against Judge Kevin Weiss
- The accusations followed Judge Weiss’s overturning of a $2.75 million jury award in a discrimination case
- The lawyers’ public statements resulted in harassment and death threats against the judge
- The Supreme Court ruled the Girleys violated their professional oath and undermined the integrity of the legal system
- The court emphasized the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary
Attorneys Face Consequences for Unfounded Racial Accusations
In a strong rebuke to attorneys who make baseless accusations against judges, the Florida Supreme Court has suspended lawyers Jerry and Brooke Girley for 30 days. The punishment stems from public allegations of racial bias they made against Judge Kevin Weiss during a civil case. The dispute originated when Jerry Girley represented Baiywo Rop, a Kenyan doctor, in a workplace discrimination lawsuit against Adventist Health System. While a jury initially awarded Rop $2.75 million, Judge Weiss later directed a verdict in favor of the health system, 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, Attorney
Instead of pursuing proper legal channels to appeal the judge’s decision, the Girleys took to social media and participated in interviews where they alleged racial prejudice influenced the ruling. Their public campaign painted Judge Weiss as racially biased without providing any factual basis for these serious accusations. The irresponsible rhetoric particularly escalated when Brooke Girley invoked historical racial injustice by posting, “A black man has no rights which a white man is bound to respect,” directly implicating Judge Weiss in racial discrimination.
Dangerous Consequences of Inflammatory Rhetoric
The consequences of the Girleys’ public accusations extended far beyond professional disagreement. According to court documents, Judge Weiss began receiving harassment and death threats following their public statements, necessitating additional security measures to protect them and their family. This dangerous outcome highlighted the real-world impact of making unfounded allegations against members of the judiciary, especially when framed in inflammatory racial terms that could provoke public outrage.
“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, Attorney
The Florida Supreme Court rejected the Girleys’ due process claims and found their statements directly targeted specific judicial members in violation of Rule 4-8.2(a), which prohibits false statements about judges. The court determined that the allegations against Judge Weiss were either knowingly or recklessly false, lacking any substantial factual basis. This standard reflects the need to balance free speech with the requirement that officers of the court maintain the integrity of the legal system.
Upholding Judicial Integrity Against False Accusations
The court’s decision reinforces an important principle that attorneys, as officers of the court, have special responsibilities to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. While disagreeing with a judge’s ruling is perfectly acceptable in our legal system, making public accusations of racial bias without evidence crosses an ethical line. The court emphasized that such behavior is prejudicial to the administration of justice and violates the attorneys’ professional oath to maintain respect for the courts.
This case serves as a reminder of the proper channels for addressing perceived judicial errors. Rather than taking to social media with inflammatory accusations, attorneys should utilize the established appellate process. The 30-day suspension sends a clear message that our legal system demands professionalism and factual accuracy when criticizing judicial decisions, especially when such criticism could undermine public confidence in the judiciary or, worse, lead to threats against judges.
The Florida Supreme Court’s ruling stands as a warning to all legal professionals about the consequences of substituting social media outrage for proper legal procedure. By holding the Girleys accountable for their unfounded allegations, the court has taken a necessary step to protect the integrity of our judicial system from those who would exploit racial tensions for their own purposes rather than pursuing justice through established legal channels.
