Broward Circuit Judge could face suspension over 'inappropriate' comments

By Dara Kam

TALLAHASSEE — Circuit Judge Gary Farmer, a former state Senate Democratic leader, is facing a recommendation that he be immediately suspended after an investigative panel accused him of “pervasive and extensive” behavior demonstrating “a present unfitness to hold office.”

Farmer, a former trial lawyer, was elected as a judge in Broward County’s 17th Judicial Circuit in 2022 after six years in the Senate. He served as Senate minority leader during the 2021 legislative session but was ousted after a vote of no confidence by fellow Democrats.

An investigative panel of the state Judicial Qualifications Commission on Thursday filed a notice of formal charges against Farmer accusing him of repeatedly making inappropriate comments. It recommended that he be immediately suspended without pay pending the outcome of the proceedings. The commission makes recommendations about judicial conduct to the Florida Supreme Court, which has ultimate disciplinary authority.

The suspension recommendation also alleged Farmer “willfully ignored the requirements of applicable statutes or rules of procedure, or was unaware of the most basic elements of the law which governed his actions as a judge in the felony division.”

Farmer, who rotated out of the circuit’s criminal division in September amid the commission’s probe, had no comment when contacted Thursday by The News Service of Florida.

The suspension recommendation also said Farmer did not appear as required at a hearing in March.

The panel “believes that his misconduct is egregious and serious, and could clearly affect the public's perception of the judiciary,” Alexander John Williams, an attorney for the commission, wrote in the 13-page recommendation for suspension.

“While Judge Farmer might argue that he has changed his behavior … the panel believes that in this case, the damage is already done,” the recommendation said.

The probe into Farmer began after a complaint about comments he made while presiding over felony cases in August. The panel found comments “discriminatory, offensive, sexually charged, and demeaning.”

As an example, Farmer “referenced and quoted extensively from a comedy sketch that makes fun of gay people,” court documents filed by the commission said.

“That is not the only time you used double entendre as humor in the courtroom. While presiding over the August 15, 2024, hearing you said, ‘Spring is here, I got so excited I wet my plants’ and ‘What did the shirt say to the pair of pants? Wassup britches!’ Apparently, these are some of what you referred to as your ‘exceptionally, exceptionally bad jokes,’” the commission’s lawyer wrote in the notice of formal charges filed at the Supreme Court.

The commission “became aware of numerous other instances involving comments and other forms of misconduct” while investigating the August comments, the suspension recommendation said.

While presiding over first appearance hearings on Oct. 15, 2023, Farmer made “numerous remarks that were wholly inappropriate, undignified, or discourteous, or otherwise behaved in a manner that is degrading to the solemnity of the proceedings, fails to uphold the high standard of conduct expected of judges, and fails to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the notice of charges said.

The recommended suspension also pointed to Farmer’s treatment of a defendant who had a court-ordered competency evaluation pending in a separate case before another judge.

Farmer “conducted an ad hoc, unscientific competency evaluation by asking the defendant random questions. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was already awaiting a competency evaluation in another matter, and had answered some of Judge Farmer's trivia questions wrong, Judge Farmer declared her competent and accepted her guilty plea,” the recommendation said.

Farmer “was unable to recall if there even was a rule governing competency” when questioned about his handling of the matter, according to the documents filed Thursday.

“The panel believes that the pervasiveness and extensive nature of Judge Farmer's misconduct demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office,” the suspension recommendation said.

The investigative panel said four factors must be considered when recommending that a judge be suspended.

“Under the right conditions, a single one of these factors might carry enough weight to warrant a recommendation of suspension: Here, the respondent (Farmer) touches on all of them,” Williams wrote.

The probe into Farmer began in October, and Farmer appeared before the panel for a hearing in December. The panel notified Farmer on March 6 about a second investigation and ordered him to appear for a hearing on March 28.

Farmer “provided no response whatsoever, written or otherwise, to the second notice of investigation, save his email on the morning of the hearings claiming that he had intended to appear,” the suspension recommendation said.

The judge’s decision “to not appear as ordered in the Order to Show Cause (hearing) simply brings his lack of responsiveness into high relief,” the recommendation said.

Farmer sent an email at 6:20 a.m. the day of the hearing saying he had an unspecified emergency requiring his “immediate, in-person attention,” according to the recommendation.

"I have learned important lessons on judicial demeanor and have avoided any further missteps. I can assure you I will continue to preside in this more appropriate manner," Farmer wrote on March 28.

But Farmer also told the investigative panel, "I don't think we can say, as judges, that we never — there's never a light moment or a joke in court, so I don't want to overstate it, but I am not doing bad jokes anymore," according to the recommendation.

The notice of charges also said Farmer said he was aware that his behavior was “incongruous” with what is expected of a judge in court.

When asked why he did not handle a first-degree felony case, Farmer said the “dad jokes don’t go well in murder cases” and referred to “Night Court,” a sitcom from the 1980s.

“The reference to the television show Night Court seems to be particularly apt here. However much Judge Farmer believes he is like the fictional Harry Stone, it goes without saying that the circus-like atmosphere that made the television show a comedic parody of real life court proceedings is completely antithetical to the manner in which a real court proceeding should be conducted and violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct,” the suspension recommendation said.

Full Article & Source:
Broward Circuit Judge could face suspension over 'inappropriate' comments

Disciplinary panel recommends 18-month suspension without pay for Judge Timothy Grendell

By: Nick Evans

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has recommended an 18-month suspension without pay for Geauga County Probate Judge Timothy Grendell. The board added that six months of that suspension should be stayed so long as Grendell doesn’t engage in further misconduct, and that the judge should receive ethics education in the time being.

The matter is now in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Grendell is a powerful and well-connected political figure in Northeastern Ohio. He served as a Republican state representative and then senator from 2001-2011, before being appointed to the Geauga County bench by Gov. John Kasich. His wife Diane Grendell, also a Republican, served two stints in the Ohio House and as an Ohio appeals court judge.

The complaint against Grendell focuses on three incidents — a private custody dispute in which the judge ordered two boys into juvenile detention for refusing to see their father, an episode where a spat between the judge and county auditor escalated to the point Grendell threatened to hold police officers in contempt, and the judge’s testimony in favor of his wife’s legislation.

In an emailed statement, Grendell said, “I respectfully disagree with the decision,” before reiterating his side of the three incidents. The judge described his years of service and volunteer work, noting Geauga county voters reelected him even after the events in the complaint occurred.

“I will appeal the OBPC decision to the Ohio Supreme Court with confidence of a better outcome,” he insisted.

The custody charges

The bulk of the board’s 88-page recommendation is devoted to Hartman-Glasier custody case. Stacy Hartman and Grant Glasier had three kids together, and after a divorce they’d been following a parenting plan that had the kids staying with Hartman for school purposes. After incidents in which the kids said Glasier was violent they refused to participate in further visitation.

When the case landed in Grendell’s court in August of 2019, the board notes, the judge “latched onto” a single sentence in a psychological evaluation “and it became his oft repeated mantra, although he repeatedly misquoted it.”

The evaluation stated parental alienation “can” have serious consquences, but the board noted in Grendell’s telling, alienation “would” have serious consequences.

And that hasn’t changed. In his statement to Ohio Capital Journal, Grendell again incorrectly insisted the report showed “letting the boys terminate their relationship with their father would cause them permanent psychological harm.”

The board goes on to describe a handful instances where Grendell said on the record, in this case that forcing the kids into visitation would be counterproductive. But that’s exactly what he did a few months later.

In May of 2020, Glasier was prepared to withdraw his motion for custody. But once the hearing began, Grendell refused to accept his motion and instead “converted” it to one enforcing Glasier’s right to parenting time. The board states Grendell “cited no applicable law or rule that permitted him to do this.” Neither Hartman nor Glasier had counsel present for the hearing. When Hartman tried to submit evidence, the judge gave a Glasier a nudge reminding he could object and warning “there’s probably a lot of hearsay in there.”

That hearing set the stage for the incident that landed their two boys in juvenile detention, and the board is unsparing in its criticism of Grendell’s actions. They note the judge failed to provide due process, gave one side legal advice, disregarded expert recommendations and earlier, private interviews he had with the children themselves. Grendell also acted contrary to his previous assertions that forcing visitation wouldn’t work and offered little to ensure the kids felt safe.

Hartman dropped off her boys a few days later with Grendell’s constable overseeing the exchange. After Hartman left the boys, 15 and 13 years old at the time, they freaked out. The constable called Grendell, and judge called another official to prepare a spot in juvenile detention.

According the board’s timeline this happened just five minutes after the drop off was scheduled to occur. The constable then called Hartman and put her on speakerphone with the boys, and told her she needed to encourage them to go with their dad. When the boys still refused, the constable called Grendell again and the judge authorized “unruly” charges because the boys weren’t obeying their mother.

All of this happened in the space of 22 minutes.

Grendell ordered the boys held separate from each other and apart from the general population because they were “co-defendants.” He prohibited any contact with their mother “because she was the ‘victim’ of their unruliness.”

The board rejected those justifications as “nonsensical” because the boys were in close contact for three hours before being booked. They added Grendell’s claims of acting in their best interests are “patently facetious.”

“Worst of all, the restrictions were purely punitive and added additional trauma to the already traumatic experience,” the board added.

The boys were held for 72 hours over the weekend and then left in a locked conference room at the court all day — the older boy in handcuffs. Grendell claimed he moved a formal hearing for the boys earlier in the day and then cancelled it altogether.

But the judge never told Hartman or the officer watching the boys. The officer described seeing the judge in street clothes and headed for the exit at 3:00 pm. He asked what he was supposed to do with the boys.

The officer told the board the judge “just said, ‘release them to the mother’ and he kept walking.”

The board also criticized Grendell for relying heavily on informal hearings without sworn testimony and an evidentiary record. Although juvenile rules allow informal proceedings, they argued, that can’t be basis for a ruling — otherwise how could anyone appeal?

Stacking it all up, they argued the judge showed “a decided ignorance of the law at best, and an intentional disregard of the law at worst,” adding he was “simply acting in an arbitrary manner to achieve his goals without even considering the law.” Further they argued his repeated refusal to accept responsibility for his own errors demonstrates “more than mere mistakes in the exercise of judicial discretion.”

The auditor dispute and legislative testimony

Geauga county auditor Charles Walder first got his job by appointment — the previous auditor resigned following a multimillion-dollar embezzlement scandal involving an IT officer. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Walder instituted more stringent accounting policies, but those measures rubbed Grendell the wrong way.

The two offices have been in running dispute ever since. It boiled over in June of 2019.

The auditor had previously asked court employees to conduct business with the office through a particular employee, but two court officials went to the office in person to inquire about an unpaid invoice. The court officials were asked to leave and took a stack of paperwork that needed signatures. Those documents were originals, though, and the auditor’s office reported them as a theft.

When the local police got involved Grendell lashed out, threatening one officer with contempt charges on a public street in his judicial robes. He followed that up by visiting the police department and trying to warn the chief off from getting involved by alluding to federal charges. Grendell then went to a Geauga County Tea Party meeting and encouraged the attendees to pursue malfeasance actions against the auditor and local prosecutor.

In his statement, Grendell noted charges eventually brought against his staffers by a special prosecutor were thrown out.

Still, the board described Grendell’s testimony downplaying the incident and defending his motives were “simply not credible.”

In June of 2020, Grendell chose to testify in favor of his wife’s Truth in COVID Statistics legislation. But judges, who represent a different branch of government, face a high bar in justifying appearances before other governmental bodies. The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct states a judge shouldn’t appear voluntarily unless their input has to do with “the law, legal system or the administration of justice,” their judicial experience gives them particular expertise or when they’re representing their own economic or legal interests.

The board noted he appeared voluntarily and testified in his capacity as a judge.

The central demand of the bill was to require state officials to report daily COVID statistics rather than just cumulative figures. Grendell asserted that amounted to reporting “half the facts — the scary half.”

The problem, as the board rightly pointed out, is “the premise of (Grendell’s) argument was simply wrong.” State officials were already reporting daily and cumulative figures. Faced with Ohio’s COVID-19 dashboard in the disciplinary hearing Grendell conceded he didn’t know it included daily case counts.

“Nonetheless,” the board noted, “he refused to concede that he was wrong when he accused (the Ohio Department of Health) of fear mongering and manipulating the numbers.”

Grendell attempted to justify his testimony by arguing that public perceptions of the pandemic had affected his court. The board dismissed this idea as “tenuous, at best, and for the most part, based on inaccurate or untrue information.” Despite claiming “firsthand” knowledge of rising domestic violence cases, Grendell acknowledged his testimony was based on one news article and anecdotal conversations. His own court’s unruly cases “had decreased, rather than increased as he claimed.”

In his statement to Ohio Capital Journal, he again described his testimony as laying out “the problems that the State’s publicly providing less than full and accurate information about Covid was causing courts and the community.” He added that he has a right to speak under the state and federal constitution.

The sanction

In weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the board noted it received 60 letters on Grendell’s behalf in addition to the testimony of three character witnesses. But they also noted many of those individuals have connections to the judge either in his courtroom, or as part of professional and civic organizations. Only one of those witnesses said they’d reviewed the case.

Meanwhile, the board said several others offered the same description of Grendell independent of one another — a bully. They heard that from at least eight different witnesses including fellow county officials and law enforcement.

The board drew links to other disciplinary cases in which judges improperly incarcerated individuals and coerced them toward a pre-determined outcome.

“Perhaps even more concerning,” they wrote, “is (Grendell’s) utter failure to recognize and acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. Respondent not only apparently believes he has done nothing wrong but testified that he would do it again.”

Full Article & Source:
Disciplinary panel recommends 18-month suspension without pay for Judge Timothy Grendell

Vermont Supreme Court Bars Former Probate Judge From Service

By Liam Elder-Connors

The Vermont Supreme Court has signed off on an order that bars a former probate judge from ever again serving as a judicial officer.

William Cobb had a private law firm in St. Johnsbury and worked part-time for three years as Caledonia County's probate judge — an elected position. William Cobb was suspended from his judicial post in 2022 after he lost his law license for 15 months.

The Professional Responsibility Board, which oversees attorneys, found that Cobb violated five rules of conduct, including disclosing confidential juvenile records and failing to provide competent representation to a client.

The Judicial Conduct Board, which oversees judges, opened their investigation to look into allegations that Cobb misled investigators.

The Judicial Conduct Board also reprimanded Cobb in 2020 for using his judicial position to gain advantages for clients facing criminal charges.

The agreement to bar Cobb from the bench, signed off on by the state's high court on Jan. 4, resolves the conduct board's case.

Cobb did not respond to a request for comment.

Source:
Vermont Supreme Court Bars Former Probate Judge From Service

State judge who told parties he had ‘no expertise in family law’ faces discipline

By: Nikita Biryukov

Superior Court Judge Michael J. Kassel was first appointed to the court in 2001. He serves in Camden County. (Photo courtesy of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

A Camden County Superior Court judge is in hot water over a temporary assignment in the vicinage’s family division.

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct filed a formal complaint Tuesday against Judge Michael J. Kassel, saying he violated court rules and impinged on the judiciary’s integrity by failing to familiarize himself with family law, complaining about his temporary assignment, and repeatedly telling parties he lacked the expertise to adjudicate their cases.

Kassel, who has been a judge for 20 years, was assigned to Camden County’s family division once a week for roughly two months, from April to June 2021.

During his brief stint in family court, Kassel repeatedly complained to parties about his temporary assignment and said he “knew very little about the applicable laws” because he last served in the division 18 years ago, according to the complaint. Kassel has handled civil cases for most of his judicial career.

“Frankly, you could get a guy off the street that’s more experienced than me with this stuff,” he said in one family court case, according to the complaint.

On another occasion, the complaint said, Kassel asked attorneys to treat him “like I’m a ninth grader in high school.” In another, he requested “both sides walk me through the case like they were walking a fairly well-educated first-year law student,” warning them against assuming he knew anything about the law or their case.

Kassel also failed to recuse himself from a case involving an attorney who defended him on an 11-year-old drunk driving charge that ultimately was dismissed, and he also disparaged a court rule allowing defendants in summary family cases to forgo filing court documents if they appear in-person at a hearing, according to the complaint.

Complaints filed by the committee rarely result in judges being suspended or terminated. Most often, judges are issued a reprimand or a censure.

Judge shortage prompts reassignments

Kassel was assigned temporarily to the family division because of a shortage of judges there.

New Jersey’s judiciary has been grappling with a staggering number of vacancies. By May, 75 seats on the Superior Court will be vacant, Judge Glenn Grant, the Courts’ administrative director, told the Assembly Budget Committee earlier this month. Another 22 retirements are expected by the end of the year.

Those shortages, coupled with a pandemic-fueled slowdown in court proceedings that is just starting to abate, have forced the judiciary to temporarily reassign judges to the criminal and family divisions to more quickly clear priority caseloads.

Kassel’s case appears to be the first reassignment to result in disciplinary proceedings.

There are just three vacancies in Camden County Superior Court, and Gov. Phil Murphy has three nominations to the county’s bench awaiting approval from the Senate.

The chamber’s Judiciary Committee, which must approve gubernatorial nominees before they reach a floor vote, is expected to reconvene in May.

Full Article & Source: 

State judge who told parties he had ‘no expertise in family law’ faces discipline

Perry County attorney disbarred after corruption of minors, other charges

by: Avery Van Etten

Judge Michael Schechterly

PERRY COUNTY, Pa. (WHTM) — After pleading guilty to charges including inappropriate contact with minors last November, Perry County judge and attorney Michael Schechterly was disbarred on April 26 by order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Schechterly was previously suspended from the Bar of Pennsylvania. He was sentenced in February to at least 60 days and no more than 23 months in prison in connection to charges including corruption of minors, intimidation of witnesses/victim, and obstructing administration or law of other governmental functions.

A Pennsylvania State Police investigation found that Schechterly sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy in 2012, according to Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

The attorney general also said that Schechterly used his authority as a judge to intimidate a woman who was a witness and an alleged victim in an investigation of sexual misconduct by a state constable and prevented her from coming forward with her allegations.

Full Article & Source:

Perry County attorney disbarred after corruption of minors, other charges

Charges dismissed for Dougherty Probate Court Judge charged with threatening employee

Dougherty County Probate Judge Leisa Blount / Photo: Dougherty County Sheriff's Office

Criminal warrants have been dismissed for a Dougherty County judge charged in March 2021 with threatening a county employee.

According to Probate Judge Leisa Blount's attorney, Maurice Luther King, Jr., Blount was facing one count of terroristic threats and one count of violation of oath by an officer after allegedly threatening a custodian at the courthouse.

In June 2021, the case was moved from Dougherty County to the Lowndes County Judicial Circuit.

On April 25, 2022, District Attorney Bradfield M. Shealy signed a warrant dismissal that states, "upon investigation, the criminal warrants in the above-styled case are hereby dismissed. As such, given the facts and circumstances of this case, it is in the best interest of justice to cease further prosecution in this matter."

Blount Dismissal by WFXL_News on Scribd

Full Article & Source:

Charges dismissed for Dougherty Probate Court Judge charged with threatening employee

State com­mission rules Westch­ester County judge be removed from office

By Kate Lisa

A village justice in Westchester County should be removed from office after he engaged in professional misconduct and lacked candor about a combined two-year suspension to practice law, according to a determination from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct released Monday.

Attorneys and justices on the commission voted Elmsford Village Court Justice Carlos Gonzalez, a Democrat, should be removed from his post in wake of the misconduct that occurred in connection with six incidents with clients.

"It would be contrary to the public interest and common sense to bar someone from appearing in court as a lawyer, but not from taking the bench and deciding legal issues," Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian said in a statement Monday.

The U.S. District Court of Western Connecticut suspended Gonzalez from practicing law after finding he engaged in professional misconduct while working as an attorney and failing to notify Connecticut's Appellate Division of his discipline in a timely manner, violating a state statute. 

In 2017, the Connecticut's U.S. District Court in Western Connecticut found Gonzalez failed to notify the Court of the Connecticut about his violation and subsequent discipline.

His total two-year suspension from practicing law in New York started May 14, 2021. The Appellate Division suspended Gonzalez for his professional misconduct for an additional 18 months to expire in July 2023.

Gonzalez took office April 5, 2021.

"Judge Gonzalez compounded his misconduct as an attorney and further undermined his integrity as a judge by being less than candid with the Appellate Division about his disciplinary history," Tembeckjian said.

The justice submitted a late, undated written opposition to the commission in January when acknowledging the facts surrounding his past suspensions.

Gonzalez also lacked candor when responding to the Ninth Judicial District's Grievance Committee about the misconduct, according to the determination. 

The commission ruled Gonzalez should be removed from the bench for his pattern of professional misconduct paired with an insincere attitude about the disciplinary actions detract from the integrity of judicial office.

"[His] professional misconduct and his lack of candor demonstrated that he is unfit for judicial office," according to the commission's determination.

Commissioners based the decision on disciplinary precedent to reprimand judges for their misconduct as an attorney and judges' obligation to behave in a manner that promotes high standards of public integrity and impartiality. 

Gonzalez ​argued he should not be removed from his post or disciplined for misconduct that took place before he became a judge. The commission rejected the argument saying his remaining on the bench "would significantly undermine public confidence in the dignity and integrity of the judiciary."

"Given the seriousness of respondent's professional misconduct as evidenced by his two suspensions from the practice of law, as well as the court's finding that he lacked candor in his dealings with the Grievance Committee, we believe that [Gonzalez] should be removed from the bench to protect the integrity of the courts," according to the determination. "... Under these circumstances, removal is required."

The commission's April 13 decision comes several weeks after hearing virtual oral arguments about Gonzalez's misconduct and suspension to practice law.

Gonzalez represented himself in the proceedings before the commission. Robert H. Tembeckjian, Mark Levine and Melissa DiPalo represented the commission.

Gonzalez's term expires March 16, 2025. He was first admitted to practice law in 2005. 

Town and village justices serve part-time and are permitted to practice law privately.

 Full Article & Source:

State com­mission rules Westch­ester County judge be removed from office

Connecticut judge who collected as much as $400K while missing 2 years of work tells state Supreme Court she should not be disciplined

By Edmund H. Mahony

Judge Alice Bruno told the state Supreme Court on Tuesday that she should not be disciplined for missing more than two years of work while collecting as much as $400,000 in salary because she suffers from a disabling health condition that state judicial administrators exacerbated by refusing to provide her with some sort of accommodation.

Bruno spoke for only minutes during an unusual, hours-long hearing at which the court ordered her to appear in person to answer why it should not suspend or remove her. It was the first time in its history that the court initiated proceedings to remove a judge and it was not immediately clear how it would end. The justices are expected to issue a written opinion in the near future on whether to initiate an investigation that could lead to discipline or removal. If they were to choose to investigate, they would have to decide whether to appoint an investigator or pass the matter to the secretive state Judicial Review Council, which hears routine complaints about judges.

It was clear from the outset Tuesday that the court was on new ground. the purpose of the hearing was to give Bruno an opportunity to argue why she shouldn’t be disciplined.

In spite of its instruction that Bruno answer questions in person, her lawyer filed 11th-hour motions a day earlier asking that she be excused from appearing and that two sets of her medical records — which underpin the proceeding — be sealed from the public and kept out of the discussion. Bruno’s lawyer, Jacques Parenteau, also told the justices that she intends to retire on a medical disability — something Chief Justice Richard Robinson said could make the hearing and questions about discipline or removal moot. (Click to continue reading)

Full Article & Source:

Connecticut judge who collected as much as $400K while missing 2 years of work tells state Supreme Court she should not be disciplined

Judge's family in turmoil after her Alzheimer's diagnosis

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- Should a Court of Appeals Justice remain on the job after an Alzheimer's diagnosis?

That is the question at the heart of a family saga involving the mayor of West University Place and his entire family.

When you walk into the stately First Court of Appeals courthouse in downtown Houston, Justice Laura Higley's smiling face is displayed along with the other justices.

At the city hall of West University Place, her husband Bob Higley's picture is also on display, as its current mayor.

However, it's the court filings in Harris County Probate Court 2 that paints the picture behind the smiling images.

"It's a sad, sad case on so many levels," said Sally McCandless, a West U resident for more than 43 years.

Like many, she was surprised to learn through news reports that Higley's sons have filed an application for permanent guardianship.

In these court filings, the adult sons contend that the judge has Alzheimer's.

In addition, "due to the recent (and rapid) progression of her Alzheimer's disease, Justice Higley's mental state has deteriorated to the point that she is no longer able to care for her own physical health or her own financial affairs ... Justice Higley is mentally 'in the moment' only, meaning that Justice Higley can carry on brief conversations and exchange simple pleasantries."

Click to Read Document

The sons also accuse their own father, Mayor Bob Higley, as having "acted as a malevolent enabler in that he has encouraged Justice Higley not to resign or retire from serving as Justice in the First Court of Appeals."

"He's the mayor of West University, but obviously the sons feel like he has not done what he's supposed to do," said McCandless. "She should not be in that position. She needs to have proper care, and it must be very difficult for those sons to say, 'We have to take action.'"

Neither the mayor nor the judge were available for comment at their West U home.

The chief justice for the First Court of Appeals, Sherry Radack, did not return ABC13's calls for comment, and neither did the sons.

When ABC13 inquired at the court about the cases Justice Higley was reviewing, we were told she has not been assigned any cases for November, and it's unknown if any additional cases will be assigned to her.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct would not say whether any complaints have been filed against the judge, citing their rules for privacy.

Full Article & Source:
Judge's family in turmoil after her Alzheimer's diagnosis

The Judiciary Is Not Above The (Guardianship) Law

A Texas judge is now the subject of a guardianship proceeding.

Recognizing that a loved one needs a guardian can be a trying time. Taking steps to help the situation is painful and often destructive to the family unit. Not everyone agrees on next steps or who should take control. Sometimes, a medical diagnosis suggests cognitive impairment. Other times, one’s conduct indicates that she requires intervention. The standard for the appointment of a guardian or a conservator varies from state to state. Generally, one is appointed as a guardian when the individual’s functional limitations are so great that she is likely to suffer harm.


A personal guardian makes medical decisions. The guardian may decide treatment plans, choice of residence, and doctors. A financial guardian marshals assets, pays liabilities, budgets, applies for benefits, and can commences lawsuits in order to recoup monies which are owed to the individual. Often guardianships are born out of financial scams wherein individuals are taken advantage of and made to give or loan their money away.

Not every guardianship involves a grandmother with dementia or a bed-ridden senior citizen. For example, despite the fact that pop star Britney Spears has a conservatorship, she has continued to work, earn money, and raise her children. Often guardianships are tailored to allow the individual as much freedom as is safe in her particular instance. Guardianships and conservatorships apply to those with mental, emotional, and physical diagnoses when individuals exhibit behaviors that may cause harm to themselves. Sometimes people do not even have an official diagnosis.

As with Britney Spears, a guardianship proceeding may be commenced while someone is still working and participating in the community. Justice Laura Carter Higley is a 72-year-old judge in the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. As she sits on the bench, her two adult sons have commenced a guardianship proceeding on her behalf in Harris County Probate Court 2. She was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and they have alleged her failing cognitive health.

Her sons argue that since November 2017, the justice has suffered from neurocognitive issues. Justice Higley, who first took the bench in 2002,  drives herself to work daily in Houston. She has been involved in cases since March 2019, although no one has appealed her decisions since her diagnosis.

As in many guardianships, there exists a fight for control as the judge has an $8 million estate. Her husband, Bob Higley, is the mayor of West University Place, Texas, and he resides there with his wife. The sons are concerned about financial exploitation. Mayor Higley serves as the justice’s agent under a financial and medical power of attorney since March 2019. The sons also question their father’s actions with regard to the judge’s personal safety.

Complaints and concerns about Justice Higley could be made to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, although it will not reveal if any have been filed as a result of their rules on privacy. The sons allege that their father has encouraged Justice Higley not to resign from her position.  According to the Texas Constitution, a judge can be removed from office in the event a disability interferes with her duties, which is or is likely to become permanent.

In many state jurisdictions, there is mandatory retirement for judges at a certain age. Such a rule often prematurely removes productive judges from the bench. Some of these judges then seek employment in the private sector. Justice Judith Kaye, the first woman to serve as the New York chief justice of the Court of Appeals, retired at age 70, due to the New York mandatory retirement statute. She then joined Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom as of counsel. Supreme Court and federal judges have lifetime appointments and many of these jurists have demonstrated monumental decisions during their “golden years.”

The case of Justice Higley highlights the fact that every guardianship matter is different. Individuals have different impairments, some of which can be hidden in the course of day-to-day activities. Some individuals may require assistance yet present well. Conversely, others may appear disheveled or in despair, but have a clear grasp on their lives. As practitioners and judges, we must look at the details and background of each case and make certain that the outcome specifically fits the facts. As is the concern with judicial mandatory retirement, not everyone ages the same way.

Full Article & Source:
The Judiciary Is Not Above The (Guardianship) Law

Judge looks to make changes guardianship program following Fierle case

Click to Watch Video Report

Greg Fox, Reporter

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. — WESH 2 Investigates has learned of changes aimed at keeping a closer eye on public and professional guardians.

Guardians are those appointed by a court to handle the medical and financial affairs of incapacitated, mostly elderly, people.

A criminal investigation was launched after a ward of former professional guardian Rebecca Fierle, Steven Stryker, died just days after Fierle refused to revoke a do-not-resuscitate order.

Officials said Fierle signed the order without the knowledge of Stryker or his daughter, Kim Stryker.

"I would like to see justice for my father," she said.

The investigation prompted Central Florida courts to revoke more than 140 other DNRs for her wards, including Jack Meagher.

"Somebody needs to try to save my life," Meagher told WESH 2 News.

Last month, Orange County's Comptroller released an audit that said Fierle had billed AdventHealth more than $3.6 million during the past five years, mostly for unknown services for 472 patients who were not legally her wards.

The audit also found she double-billed AdventHealth and some of the 95 patients who were listed as wards.

Donald Myers, the chief judge of the 9th Circuit, which includes Orange and Osceola counties, is making changes to the way guardian cases are handled to ensure vulnerable, mostly elderly people, are not victimized by their guardians.

"Through the Rebecca Fierle story and incident we have recognized that there are parts of the guardianship system that we just do not have the resources to address," Myers said.

Myers told WESH 2 News he's changing that.

A new judge will be added beginning Jan. 1.

That means one judge will handle probate and trust cases, while the other handles just guardianship and mental health matters.A guardian case manager will also be added. Myers is reviewing software and a database in Pennsylvania that tracks guardian cases, and alerts the state and courts of unauthorized billing or payments.

Fierle had more than 450 wards in more than a dozen counties.

"A statewide system like that would assist us in being able to see firsthand where guardians are working, how many cases they are handling and the potentials for fraud or abuse," Myers said.

Full Article & Source:
Judge looks to make changes guardianship program following Fierle case

Guardianship registration revoked for Betsy Savitt, wife of retired judge

The state on Thursday revoked the registration of professional guardian Elizabeth “Betsy” Savitt, the wife of former guardianship Judge Martin Colin and the subject of criminal and administrative investigations based on complaints first reported in The Palm Beach Post.

The ruling by the Department of Elder Affairs came despite a December recommendation by an administrative law judge to drop disciplinary proceedings against Savitt. The judge had found that the new guardianship office lacked jurisdiction and failed to make its case.

But Elder Affairs’ reversed parts of the recommendation and the end result. The ruling should give Florida seniors and their families confidence that the state will do everything under the law to protect them, Elder Affairs Secretary Richard Prudom said.

“I hope our action today serves as a deterrent for anyone seeking to exploit individuals under guardianship.” Prudom said. “Revoking Ms. Savitt’s registration is simply the right thing to do based on her repeated bad behavior and shows our seriousness and commitment to removing those self-serving bad actors who act unlawfully.”

It marked the first time a professional guardian has been disciplined in Florida since the Legislature allowed such action in a 2016 reform package. The state’s new Office of Public and Professional Guardians called the ruling against Savitt “historic.”

“We will not tolerate the exploitation of Floridians in the guardianship system that was established to help them,” said Carol Berkowitz, executive director of the guardianship office.

Savitt eroded the public trust with “repeated violations of law” and deserved the harshest discipline available to prevent any further harm to the public, Berkowitz said.

Savitt can’t be appointed to any cases in Palm Beach County without her registration and faces removal from her current cases, the chief judge’s office has stated.

Savitt was the subject of a 2016 Palm Beach Post investigation that showed how lawyers who represented her also relied on her husband to approve fees in other cases, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The inspector general of the Palm Beach County Clerk and Comptroller’s Office determined in March 2017 “that Savitt was involved with corruption and collusion of judges and lawyers in Delray Beach for financial gain.”

The clerk’s office received at least four calls about Savitt to its guardianship hotline and referred matters to the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, which found no probable cause to charge her.

The guardianship office, relying on the newly passed state law, used the clerk’s report in its administrative complaint filed last year. It pointed out that Savitt, as first reported in The Post, took more than $20,000 in fees from the savings of her wards prior to judicial approval.

Savitt’s attorney responded to questions late Thursday night, claiming the process was rigged against her client and that the guardian would seek an appeal of the final order in the courts.

“It is important for the public to know that the plaintiff, the Department of Elder Affairs, who brought the administrative complaint against Ms. Savitt, and who lost in the trial before an independent judge who recommended that the complaint be dismissed, is the same party who is now deciding to overturn the independent judge and rule against Ms. Savitt,” Morris said in an email.

The guardianship office said Savitt violated three sections of the state guardianship statute by taking the retainers and thus failing to act in good faith, failing to act in the best interests of the ward and abusing her power as a guardian.

“Thank God, really. It is like a load off my back,” said James Vassallo, whose father was one of Savitt’s wards. “Finally, she is not going to be out there hurting anybody, taking money from the kids and grandkids and from hard-working people from the Depression days.”

Dr. Sam Sugar, the founder of American Against Abusive Probate Guardianship, was a key force in getting the Legislature to pass the reforms.

Sugar on Thursday praised the Department of Elder Affairs, heralding that it “has finally seen fit to take the bold and long overdue action of decertifying one of the many notorious professional guardians in Florida who for years have preyed upon seniors in our state.”

He added that he hoped the Savitt decision is “our long-awaited tipping point with the department and law enforcement to finally realize the danger posed by out-of-control abusive guardians.”

Colin and Savitt have long denied any wrongdoing. Savitt says she has never been removed as a guardian — though she has resigned from cases following complaints from the loved ones of seniors put in her guardianships.

After The Post’s publication, Colin was transferred out of the guardianship division and announced his retirement. All of Savitt’s cases were moved out of Delray Beach. The 15th Judicial Circuit then put in place guardianship reforms aimed at Savitt, such as banning the use of retainers.

The decision Friday rejected the recommendation by Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy, who oversaw a two-day hearing in September. Creasy recommended the effort to revoke Savitt’s registration be dropped, noting the law puts the onus on the courts to suss out conflicts of interest, not the guardian.

The 34-page Elder Affairs final order says her finding flies in the face of the Legislature’s intent to grant authority to the guardianship office to discipline guardians.

Complaints from families of Savitt’s wards varied.

They said in court records that the guardian ginned up fees with needless litigation and funneled money to certain relatives of wards. In one, Savitt tried to annul a marriage, in another she tried to tap into a lucrative trust of a stroke victim, court records showed.

Former attorneys of one senior tried to get Savitt removed, telling the court they suspected that $400,000 was missing from the ward’s bank account, but a judge sided with the guardian.

West Palm Beach attorney Thomas Dougherty fought Savitt in court on behalf of Vassallo and the family of another ward. He said the ruling Friday is “hopefully the wake-up call for all involved:” guardians, lawyers and the judges.

“There is no room for self-dealing when it comes to vulnerable people who need the protections guardianships were intended to afford,” Dougherty said.


Full Article & Source:
Guardianship registration revoked for Betsy Savitt, wife of retired judge

See Also:
Judge deals Florida’s new guardianship office big setback in Elizabeth Savitt case

EXCLUSIVE: Betsy Savitt guardianship report alleges ‘wrongdoing by sitting judges’ 

Judge Martin Colin had a hand in his wife’s guardianship cases, state says

Post investigation: Another blow to Judge Colin

Judge in Post series moved from guardianship cases

Chief judge keeps public waiting on details of guardianship shakeup

Guardianships: A Broken Trust: Attorney: "Courts Have Allowed This Culture"

Guardianships: A Broken Trust, 115 Recusals in Six Months

Guardianships: A Broken Trust: Judges Socialized, Planned Trips Together

Judge deals Florida’s new guardianship office big setback in Elizabeth Savitt case

The recommendation is a rebuke of Florida’s fledgling efforts to regulate professional guardians for incapacitated senior citizens

In a rebuke of Florida’s fledgling efforts to regulate professional guardians for incapacitated senior citizens, an administrative judge recommended the state drop its first ever effort to revoke the registration of a professional guardian — Palm Beach County’s Elizabeth “Betsy” Savitt.”

Savitt is the wife of former Circuit Judge Martin Colin. Families and guardianship reform advocates have long pointed to the couple as an example of a guardianship system that aims to extract fees from the life savings of incapacitated seniors and disabled adults.

Colin’s fellow judges — specifically family friend Circuit Judge David French who once oversaw the majority of her cases — were named in a report compiled by the Inspector General of the Palm Beach County’s Clerk & Comptroller’s Office finding “corruption and collusion of judges and lawyers in Delray Beach for financial gain.”

But it appears — for now — that the state’s new guardianship office’s aim to end Savitt’s career as a guardian in Palm Beach County has resulted in a swing and a miss.

Savitt “had no conflict between herself and Judge Colin because he did not appoint her or preside over her (professional guardian) cases,” wrote Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy in a Dec. 21 recommendation to the Department of Elder Affairs.

And while the appearance of the potential conflict should have been better disclosed, Creasy said Savitt did not benefit and no seniors in her care were harmed.

Creasy, though, did find that Savitt violated guardianship statutes and abused her power by taking fees from the savings of her wards prior to court approval.

But the judge said the newly created Office of Public and Professional Guardians had no jurisdiction under the state law it cited to punish Savitt for acting “clearly against the wards’ best interest.”

“That is the exclusive purview of the circuit court which appointed (the professional guardian),” Creasy wrote in the decision filed. She said these judges ultimately approved these fees after Savitt had taken them improperly.

Repeatedly in her 35-page recommendation, Creasy said the state guardianship office failed to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. As a result, Creasy recommended the office drop its case against Savitt ‒ a blow for the state’s novice effort to discipline guardians.

Savitt was quick to declare victory.

“As the court found, there was no impropriety in the handling of guardianship cases involving now retired Judges Martin Colin and David French or any other judges,” Savitt said in an email.

“There was insufficient evidence that I violated the guardianship statutes as charged and there was no evidence that any of my wards were harmed by me.”

However, Creasy’s recommendation remains for now just that ‒ a recommendation. The guardianship office falls under the Department of Elder Affairs, which will ultimately decide Savitt’s fate.

Ashley Chambers, spokeswoman for Elder Affairs, said the guardianship office does not agree with Creasy’s conclusions and will be submitting “exceptions” to the department, which has until March 21 to file its final order. Savitt will have a chance to challenge any final decision in an appellate court.

“Our Office of Public and Professional Guardianship (OPPG) will always pursue appropriate disciplinary action when a complaint investigation finds that a guardian has violated their statutory responsibilities or has not acted in the best interest of the ward,” Chambers said.

Robert Jarvis, a Nova Southeastern University law professor and expert on ethics, said that it’s clear Creasy thought the state guardianship office “did a terrible job presenting its case and was unwilling to cut it any slack.”

He notes Creasy stated that Savitt’s actions of failing to disclose her marriage and taking retainers before court approval erode the public confidence in the guardianship system. But the administrative judge added that “they are not actionable as charged” by the guardianship office.

“Savitt got very, very lucky,” Jarvis said. “Had the OPPG done a proper job of pleading, I have no doubt that Judge Creasy would have found that Savitt should be punished.”

Dr. Sam Sugar, founder of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship, said he sees the judiciary once again protecting its own.

“If there were reason to question the integrity of the Florida judicial system this is Exhibit A,” Sugar said.

“This is a moment of deep shame that only reinforces the notion that the black robe mafia has nothing to worry about and can continue to lord over us in any way their whimsy dictates.”

The state guardianship office’s formed the basis of its administrative complaint from a detailed report compiled for it by Anthony Palmieri, the deputy inspector general of Palm Beach County’s Clerk & Comptroller’s Office.

“If the experience and expertise of Anthony Palmieri and the OPPG is insufficient to create a legally sufficient and powerful complaint to rid Florida from just one egregious guardian, then the rest of us in this state have no hope whatsoever of ever getting a fair shake from the probate courts,” Sugar said.

The clerk referred all questions to the state guardianship office.

North Palm Beach probate and guardianship attorney Mitchell Kitroser said the majority of guardians and the judges that they appear before work incredibly hard with far too little support. And despite Creasy’s recommendation, he thinks the state guardianship office’s investigation of Savitt will prove a reminder that the public’s perception of, and confidence in the legal process, is of paramount importance.

“One of the results of this investigation will be a greater sensitivity to the appearance that the public gets when a sitting judge and a close relative work in the same division of our legal system in the same county,” he said.

“Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety would, I think, help provide the public with greater confidence in the impartiality of our judiciary which is essential to the proper functioning of our legal system.”

Savitt’s work as a professional came to light in January 2016 in The Palm Beach Post’s investigative series, “Guardianship: A Broken Trust.”

Some of the attorneys who represented Savitt and funneled her guardianships appeared in front of Colin, relying on him to approve large fee requests in probate cases.

Following The Post’s report, Colin was transferred out of the probate division in February 2016 and retired at the end of that year. A criminal investigation into Colin was commenced by the State Attorney’s Office but resulted in no charges.

Complaints from families about Savitt can be found in several of her guardianships. A majority of Savitt’s cases were in front of French, a friend of the couple, who routinely dismissed complaints from family members of wards about Savitt.

In one guardianship case, Savitt tried to annul a ward’s marriage, which the spouse feared would cut her out from any inheritance. In two other cases, families accused Savitt of funneling money to relatives of the ward.

Savitt also took more than $20,000 in what she called retainers from her ward’s savings prior to judicial approval ‒ the behavior Creasy cited as a violation of guardianship law.

Then there was the time the former attorneys for 86-year-old Frances Berkowitz, a Savitt ward, claimed $400,000 was missing from the senior’s account. Their efforts to open up an inquiry were shut down by a circuit judge, who found the attorneys did not have standing.

Savitt often points out she has never been removed from a guardianship by a judge and that no judge ever found any wrongdoing on her part.

When families fought Savitt, they found themselves embroiled in extricated legal affairs ‒ all of which resulted in large legal fees that went to Savitt and her lawyers. All such fees in a guardianship are paid by the incapacitated ward, whose money was almost always under Savitt’s control.

After The Post’s 2016 stories, then Palm Beach County Chief Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath adopted guardianship reform in October 2016. He addressed many of the complaints about Savitt, prohibiting retainers and establishing a wheel to address any perceived favoritism toward certain guardians.

Savitt, in her email, noted she hoped with Creasy’s recommendation, The Post and the Clerk’s Office will end “their unhealthy obsession with me and my family.”

Full Article & Source:
Judge deals Florida’s new guardianship office big setback in Elizabeth Savitt case

See Also:

EXCLUSIVE: Betsy Savitt guardianship report alleges ‘wrongdoing by sitting judges’ 

Judge Martin Colin had a hand in his wife’s guardianship cases, state says

Post investigation: Another blow to Judge Colin

Judge in Post series moved from guardianship cases

Chief judge keeps public waiting on details of guardianship shakeup

Guardianships: A Broken Trust: Attorney: "Courts Have Allowed This Culture"

Guardianships: A Broken Trust, 115 Recusals in Six Months

Guardianships: A Broken Trust: Judges Socialized, Planned Trips Together

POINT OF VIEW: Post article too broad, sullies county judiciary

Former Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Martin Colin presides over a hearing in August 2015 at the South County Courthouse in Delray Beach. Judge Colin’s wife. Elizabeth Savitt, who is a professional guardian, was simultaneously participating in a hearing in another courtroom with Attorney Sheri Hazeltine. (Madeline Gray / The Palm Beach Post)

The Sept. 9 front-page article published in The Palm Beach Post regarding former Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Martin Colin and his wife Betsy Savitt, a professional guardian — Report: Savitt involved with ‘corruption, collusion of judges’ — references several current and retired judges and through innuendo insinuates that they have acted improperly. In doing so, the integrity of the entire Palm Beach County judiciary is called into question. This article lacked certain necessary context for many of the allegations against the Palm Beach County judges who were outside the primary focus of The Post’s investigation.

This response from the Palm Beach County Bar Association purposely avoids any comment on allegations against Judge Colin and Savitt as there is already a process in place to sort out the facts and application of the law for their situations. However, the Bar Association writes to express its objection to the way several other highly respected judges and the Palm Beach County judicial system in general were portrayed in the article.

The Bar’s concerns with the framing of the article is particularly relevant in light of the fact that much of the basis of the article stemmed from the findings in the report by the Inspector General of the Clerk and Comptroller’s Office which was admittedly not “focus[ed] on the judiciary.”

The report did not make findings of impropriety as to any of the other judges who were mentioned in the article, nor were they the target of the investigation. Many of the matters reported were ‘circumstantial and anecdotal’ but were presented in a manner that calls into question the integrity of the entire Palm Beach County judiciary. A judiciary that is consistently one of the highest rated judiciaries in the state of Florida and is frequently a model for the other judiciaries statewide.

Specifically, the article states, “Once again, a major institution in what is known nationwide as “Corruption County” stands accused of betraying the public trust” and “judges approved questionable fees or appointed Savitt under “unusual circumstances.” The tenor of the article leaves the reader with the impression that collusion, conspiracy and corruption are pervasive in the courts of Palm Beach County. This is simply not accurate.

Further, the article refers to several respected current Palm Beach County judges who merely oversaw cases randomly assigned to them where Savitt happened to be acting as a guardian.

Judges should not be above criticism when it is accurately based and properly intentioned. Through only speculation and implication, the article makes it appear that certain functions of the court, which are subject to the rule of law as well as other oversight, were somehow suspicious. There is a difference between conscientious examination of facts and sensational embellishment.

While The Post has done admirable work on this subject, which has led to important changes in the guardianship statutes and rules, the county Bar believes the most recent article missed the mark by improperly maligning other Palm Beach County judges. As a result, the article also seemingly (and improperly) attacks the county’s entire judicial system.

As The Post is aware, the state’s judicial canons forbid sitting judges from responding in the press or commenting on pending or prospective litigation so any mention of a judge in an article, whether warranted or not, will typically go without rebuttal by that judge. While the Bar Association takes seriously any allegations of judicial misconduct, the best practice in the future would be to avoid potentially sullying the reputations of judges with unsubstantiated claims, or more specifically painting them “guilty by association.”

GREGORY HUBER,WEST PALM BEACH

Editor’s note: Huber is president of the Palm Beach County Bar Association.

Full Article & Source:
POINT OF VIEW: Post article too broad, sullies county judiciary

See Also:
Report: Savitt involved with ‘corruption, collusion of judges’ 

Judge Martin Colin had a hand in his wife’s guardianship cases, state says

Post investigation: Another blow to Judge Colin

 

Judge in Post series moved from guardianship cases

Chief judge keeps public waiting on details of guardianship shakeup

Guardianships: A Broken Trust: Attorney: "Courts Have Allowed This Culture"

Guardianships: A Broken Trust, 115 Recusals in Six Months

Guardianships: A Broken Trust: Judges Socialized, Planned Trips Together

Ex-judge’s wife Betsy Savitt kicked off county’s guardianship registry

James Vassallo holds a photo of his parents, Albert Vassallo Sr. and Geraldine Mickey Vassallo, in November 2015. His father was a senior “ward” of Elizabeth “Betsy” Savitt, wife of Circuit Judge Martin Colin. (John Pacenti/The Palm Beach Post)

It’s on a loop that runs in James Vassallo’s mind. He repeats it every time he is asked about court-appointed professional guardian Elizabeth Savitt.

When he confronted Savitt over her billing practices, over the care of his incapacitated father, over the depleting of his father’s estate as her cadre of lawyers fought him through litigation, the former tennis instructor told him:

“There’s nothing you can do to me. My husband is a judge.”

For the first time since The Palm Beach Post exposed the vast conflict of interest between Savitt and her husband, Martin Colin — who at the time sat as a guardianship judge — the former tennis instructor no longer can be appointed new cases.

How long will Savitt be on the sidelines? At least a year, and maybe forever, depending on how an administrative judge rules on whether to impose sanctions against the guardian.

In the meantime, her husband is being investigated by the Florida Bar.

Chief Circuit Judge Krista Marx confirmed Savitt has been removed from the registry for guardians in Palm Beach County’s judicial circuit. The action was taken because Savitt failed to notify the circuit that she was the subject of an administrative complaint filed by the state’s Office of Public and Professional Guardians. She also was removed from the guardianship wheel for random assignment to cases. She can reapply next year.

“It is true that because I inadvertently did not notify court administration of the administrative complaint, I am off the wheel for one year only and this applies only to new guardianship cases in Palm Beach County,” Savitt told The Post. “None of my current guardianship cases are affected and I am continuing to provide guardianship and other related services to my clients.”

Savitt’s true fate rests in the hands of a state administrative judge, who is mulling the complaint, which seeks sanctions that could knock her off the registry for good.

If the administrative judge recommends that Savitt lose her state certification as a professional guardian, she would automatically be removed from the six cases she still has, Marx said.

Savitt is the first guardian to face an administrative complaint filed by the guardianship office, which was given regulatory authority over professional guardians by the state Legislature in March 2016 in an effort to reform the industry. Only the office can take away a guardian’s registration.

Marx added that applications of all guardians in the judicial circuit are reviewed by a committee annually and Savitt still would have to be approved in Palm Beach County to be eligible to again be appointed to cases.

IG report

Marx also addressed a damning Inspector General’s report on Savitt and Colin that serves as the basis for the administrative complaint, saying the issues predate reforms adopted in the wake of The Post’s 2016 investigation, “Guardianships: A Broken Trust.”

The reforms announced in October 2016 addressed many of the complaints from families about Savitt. For example, it banned her practice of taking thousands of dollars from the savings of her wards — which she called “retainers” — prior to a judge’s approval. To address favoritism, the judicial circuit created the wheel where guardians would be appointed randomly if the family of the incapacitated ward could not agree on one.

“Since the implementation of these procedures, court administration has not been made aware of new allegations related to Ms. Savitt,” Marx said.

Savitt vigorously fought any complaint about her actions — such as when she insisted on funneling an extra $54,000 to Vassallo’s sister for reasons still unknown. Or when the former attorneys of Frances Berkowitz alerted the court to $400,000 missing from the incapacitated senior’s banking account.

The State Attorney’s Office subpoenaed financial records and found no criminal activity, according to a close-out memo on that office’s investigation.

The IG report, emanating out of the Clerk and Comptroller’s Office, noted that while there was insufficient information to reach the high bar to file criminal charges, there was “circumstantial and anecdotal information of criminal corruption and collusion of the guardian and the judges, court staff and lawyers.”

The IG report named at least 14 Palm Beach County judges who appointed Savitt and approved her fees, approved improperly filed petitions and were involved in cases in which Colin funneled work to his wife. The report concluded the blatant conflict of interest she had with her husband resulted in “corruption and collusion of judges and lawyers in Delray Beach for financial gain.”

Colin himself signed orders in his wife’s cases and funneled guardianships to her by appointing certain attorneys, the report said. They were attorneys who relied on him to approve their fees in other matters.

Marx said she couldn’t comment on whether the IG’s report has been forwarded to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which recommends discipline for judges to the Florida Supreme Court. It doesn’t make its investigations public unless probable cause is found.

Accusations ‘nonsense’
 
Colin was moved out of the Probate Division in 2016 after The Post’s investigation and announced he would retire at the end of that year.

He called accusations he guided cases to his wife “nonsense” at a hearing on the administrative complaint this month. He said he accidentally signed the orders.

Families often had to dip into their own pockets to fight Savitt. Vassallo said he paid about $20,000 to lawyers only to watch Circuit Judge David French — a close friend of Colin’s and Savitt’s — approve one law firm’s bill over his objections. Savitt said in a deposition that she and Colin had vacationed with French and his wife at the time before Savitt was a guardian.

Clifford Hark, an attorney named in the IG report, was hired by Vassallo after his sister took $130,000 from his father, Albert Vassallo Sr. He urged him to get Savitt as a guardian. The IG report said Hark funneled guardianships to Savitt.

“It all came back to hiring the lawyer. He talked me into it, knowing what kind of lady she was,” Vassallo said.

The Deerfield Beach plumber said that Savitt did next to nothing to recoup the money that was taken from his father and that he estimates that six family heirs lost at a minimum about $38,000 from their inheritance because of her inaction.

The administrative judge will make her recommendations on Savitt in about a month. It will then be up to the Department of Elder Affairs to decide whether to accept that recommendation.

Savitt’s lawyer, Ellen Morris, has said she plans to seek legal fees from the department for the action against her client, saying it was brought in bad faith.

Bar complaint

In the meantime, the Florida Bar confirmed it is investigating Colin, who is working as a mediator in his retirement.

In Broward County, Circuit Judge John Patrick Contini resigned from the bench as he was being investigated by the Judicial Qualifications Commission for ethical violations for allowing a judicial assistant to work on his personal business. He agreed this month to not practice law for five years.

Robert Jarvis said it remains to be seen whether the Florida Bar can discipline attorneys for actions they took while they were on the bench. It’s not unusual for judges who fall under scrutiny for ethical violations simply to step down, thus avoiding disciplinary action by the JQC.

Jarvis pointed to a case out of Manatee County in which a former judge and now practicing attorney, John Lakin, has been recommended for discipline by the Bar for taking baseball tickets from lawyers who appeared in front of him. That case is in front of the Florida Supreme Court.

“The Florida Bar is going after former judges. I’m not sure that they have the ability to do that. It is an unsettled issue,” Jarvis said.

“I would think they could go after lots of people if in fact they are found to have the jurisdiction.”

On the reform front, Dr. Sam Sugar, co-founder of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship, said he is researching how families can go after the $50,00o bond required of guardians. However, he said families who choose to go this route often have to pay an attorney up front at least that amount to make a claim.

Despite the reforms passed by the Legislature and action by the state, little can be done to recoup the emotional and financial damage to families wrought by rogue guardianships.

“This is one of those Don Quixote things,” Sugar said. “There is no recourse.”

Full Article & Source:
Ex-judge’s wife Betsy Savitt kicked off county’s guardianship registry

See Also:
EXCLUSIVE: Betsy Savitt guardianship report alleges ‘wrongdoing by sitting judges’

Judge Martin Colin had a hand in his wife’s guardianship cases, state says

Post investigation: Another blow to Judge Colin

 

Judge in Post series moved from guardianship cases

Chief judge keeps public waiting on details of guardianship shakeup

Guardianships: A Broken Trust: Attorney: "Courts Have Allowed This Culture"

Guardianships: A Broken Trust, 115 Recusals in Six Months

Guardianships: A Broken Trust: Judges Socialized, Planned Trips Together