On Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Broward County Judge Lauren Peffer filed a motion to dismiss formal charges brought against her by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) in case number SC2025-0647.
The charges allege violations of Canons 7A(3)(b) and 7A(3)(e) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct during her 2024 judicial campaign. The motion argues that the JQC failed to state a cause of action for the alleged violation of Canon 7A(3)(e).
The JQC filed its Notice of Formal Charges on May 9, 2025, claiming Judge Peffer breached judicial conduct rules. On May 29, 2025, the JQC Hearing Panel granted Peffer an extension to file her response. She submitted her answer on June 13, 2025, denying key allegations, including the claim that she adopted a “win at all costs” approach during her campaign.
The motion to dismiss, filed with no objection from JQC Special Counsel Henry M. Coxe III, invokes Judicial Qualifications Commission Rule 12(b) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)(6), asserting that the JQC’s charges lack sufficient factual basis.
The motion cites the applicability of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140, which allows dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. It references JQC Rule 6(g), requiring charges to specify essential facts, and argues that the absence of such facts warrants dismissal. The motion notes that JQC rules permit the use of civil procedure rules unless otherwise specified, and no rule prohibits motions to dismiss.
Peffer’s motion addresses Canon 7A(3)(e), which prohibits judicial candidates from making pledges inconsistent with impartiality, misrepresenting facts about themselves or opponents, commenting publicly on pending cases in a way that affects fairness, or criticizing jurors’ verdicts outside specific legal contexts. The motion argues that the JQC’s allegations do not meet the pleading requirements for any subsection of Canon 7A(3)(e). It states that no facts show Peffer made pledges or commitments under subsection (i), misrepresented her opponent’s identity or qualifications under subsection (ii), commented on pending cases under subsection (iii), or criticized jurors under subsection (iv).
In her June 13 answer, Peffer addressed allegations tied to statements made during a 2024 Sun Sentinel editorial board interview. She identified major judicial system challenges, including equity, public trust, and awareness, referencing “recent revelations” from the Ninth Judicial Circuit and an “image crisis” in Florida’s judiciary.
She mentioned a book by a former courthouse employee critical of the justice system but admitted she had not read it, intending only to highlight existing criticism. Peffer also provided a recording to the Sun Sentinel, later identified as a “deep fake,” which she had not fully reviewed before sharing. She acknowledged not verifying the recording’s authenticity or the book’s claims, admitting she briefly listened to the recording and did not contact the employee or judges referenced.
Peffer, a first-time judicial candidate and animal rights advocate who founded a non-profit animal rescue, maintained a professional relationship with her opponent, known for child advocacy and criminal defense work. She attended a judicial ethics training by the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee but denied ignoring its guidance. Peffer denied facilitating any false claims and rejected the accusation that her actions violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The motion requests dismissal of the Canon 7A(3)(e) charge, arguing the JQC’s failure to allege essential facts renders the charge legally insufficient.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
