Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

High court shows little mercy for judge

Florida justices come down hard on a circuit judge for his 2002 campaign. And that is just in arguments.

By COLLEEN JENKINS
Published April 5, 2006

TALLAHASSEE - It wasn't an official public reprimand, but it sure sounded like one.

The Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case against Pasco-Pinellas Circuit Judge John Renke III, accused of winning his seat by overstating his legal qualifications and taking an illegal $95,800 campaign loan from his father.

That's "buying an election," said Chief Justice Barbara Pariente.

"Gross misrepresentation," said Justice Kenneth Bell.

A "disingenuous position," said Justice Charles Wells.

The question is, what will the justices do about it?

Their decision likely won't come for weeks or months. But the justices clearly have reservations about leaving Renke on the bench.

Doing so, they said, could send a disturbing message to future judicial candidates.

"What's the lesson here if we don't do something more serious than a public reprimand and a fine?" Pariente said. "Is this a situation of the ends do justify the means because in the end, you do stay on?"

Last year, a state hearing panel suggested a public reprimand and $40,000 fine. But the panel found that Renke had been a good judge and should keep his job. Renke hears probate and family law cases in west Pasco County.

Renke, 36, became the state's youngest circuit judge in 2002. He beat veteran lawyer Declan Mansfield largely with the help of his father, former state Rep. John Renke II, and the Republican Party.

The decidedly political feel in a nonpartisan race drew criticism. A year after his election, the Judicial Qualifications Commission hit the younger Renke with multiple charges of campaign misconduct.

Chief among them was his contention that he spent eight years handling complex civil trials as a lawyer in his father's New Port Richey firm.

"That was just blatantly false," Pariente said Tuesday. "You couldn't find a lawyer that had less civil trial experience at that time."

Pariente said the younger Renke essentially worked as a law clerk making meager wages under his father.

"Just coincidentally," she said, "in the year that he's running for judge he gets paid $140,116."

"I don't think it's a coincidence at all," said Scott Tozian, Renke's Tampa attorney. "His father didn't want to pay him what he owed him until he absolutely had to."

"Or," Pariente said, "his father decided that since he wasn't a very good lawyer, might as well pay the money so he could become a judge."

Tozian noted that during Renke's JQC trial last fall, the judge apologized to Pasco and Pinellas voters if any felt misled about his credentials. But Tozian stressed those misrepresentations were purely unintentional.

Again, the justices were skeptical.

"I could see one inadvertent piece of campaign literature," Justice Peggy Quince said. "But this was a series of things. It just appears to me that we have a problem here with the honesty of this campaign literature."

In 2004, the state Supreme Court rejected a settlement for Renke that called for a monthlong suspension, a $20,000 fine and a public reprimand. At the time, the justices gave no explanation of their decision.

On Tuesday, Pariente said they had been concerned the punishment wasn't severe enough. And that was before the JQC added the allegation of the improper campaign contribution.

"This is obviously a very serious matter that the court is struggling with," she said.

--Colleen Jenkins can be reached at 727 869-6236 or cjenkins@sptimes.com

[Last modified April 5, 2006, 00:37:15]