Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

JQC balks at cleared judge's lawyer bill

It pursued plagiarism charges against Gregory Holder, but says repaying his costs of fighting them would not be justified.

By KEVIN GRAHAM
Published August 9, 2005

TAMPA - The Judicial Qualifications Commission took a stand Monday against using public money to pay for Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder's $1.77-million plagiarism defense - but suggested he get reimbursed $140,000 in court costs.

Holder's two-year legal battle, which could have forced him off the bench, had nothing to do with his official duties, the JQC told the Florida Supreme Court.

Holder's attorney David Weinstein said he disagrees with the JQC's position.

"If one simply reads the notice of formal charges by which the JQC commenced this case, it is clear that the JQC's position throughout has been that the charges for which Judge Holder was exonerated were directly related to his judicial office," Weinstein said.

The Hillsborough judge employed attorneys from three law firms to fight allegations that he plagiarized a 1998 research paper for a course at MacDill Air Force Base.

The former Air Force reservist took an Air War College class as a prerequisite to be promoted to colonel.

In June, the JQC dismissed the charges. No one could ever produce the original paper Holder submitted, and witnesses raised doubt that he copied his work.

Holder has said he has spent about $100,000 of his own money on his legal defense.

Last month, his attorneys filed a motion asking the JQC to pay his legal bill.

It's up to the high court to decide.

In response to the request for fees, the JQC wrote:

"Unquestionably, the resolution of the highly publicized charges against Judge Holder and matters relating thereto served a public purpose, but there is not a sufficient nexus between the writing of the paper and the certification and the performance of Judge Holder's official duties as a circuit judge" to justify paying fees.

In their argument, Holder's attorneys presented a case about three Fort Walton Beach City Council members.

The elected officials sought fees for defending against a recall petition case.

The court deciding that case said the council members were entitled to reimbursement under a law that said "for public officials to be entitled to representation at public expense, the litigation must arise out of or in connection with performance of their officials duties and serve a public purpose."

Holder's case didn't hold the same principles, the JQC said.

Holder's attorneys also argued that in civil actions and administrative proceedings initiated by state agencies, a "prevailing small business party" may be entitled to attorneys' fees and costs.

But Holder, the JQC wrote, is a state employee. And he does not qualify under this statute because neither state nor private employees are within the statutory definition of a "small business party."

--Kevin Graham can be reached at 813 226-3433 or kgraham@sptimes.com

[Last modified August 9, 2005, 01:22:12]