On Thursday, July 3, 2025, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (FJQC), through its Special Counsel, filed a response to a motion to dismiss submitted by Judge Lauren Peffer. The response addresses allegations outlined in the Notice of Formal Charges, which Peffer’s motion claims do not constitute violations of Canon 7A(3)(e) of the judicial code.
Peffer’s motion argues that the Notice of Formal Charges lacks facts demonstrating that she made any pledges, promises, or commitments, as prohibited under Canon 7A(3)(e)(i). Additionally, the motion contends that no evidence in the notice suggests a violation of Canon 7A(3)(e)(ii), which prohibits misrepresentations of an opponent’s identity, qualifications, current position, or other facts. The response from the FJQC counters these claims, asserting that the allegations in the notice are sufficient to proceed to a formal hearing.
The FJQC’s response highlights that Peffer acknowledges the commission’s rules do not allow motions for summary judgment, as noted in FJQC Rule 12(c) and referenced in her motion. To circumvent this, Peffer’s motion cites various sections of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the FJQC argues that granting a dismissal or summary judgment before a final hearing would be equivalent to a judgment on the pleadings, which exceeds the authority granted to the Hearing Panel under FJQC rules. The response emphasizes that a proper evaluation of the charges should occur after all evidence and arguments are presented at the final hearing.
The response further details that the Notice of Formal Charges alleges Peffer’s campaign centered on a theme of restoring public trust in response to perceived erosion of confidence in the Ninth Circuit’s judiciary. The FJQC contends that the Hearing Panel could reasonably interpret this campaign theme as a promise or commitment that conflicts with the impartial performance of judicial duties, particularly if it relied on false information that did not actually undermine public trust. The commission argues that these allegations are sufficient to support a potential violation of Canon 7A(3)(e)(i), justifying the continuation of the inquiry.
The FJQC cites precedent to support its position, referencing a prior case involving Judge Carrol Kelly (SC20-649), where a Hearing Panel denied a motion to dismiss counts in the Notice of Formal Charges. In that case, the panel ruled it lacked authority to issue summary judgments but could determine evidence admissibility, reinforcing the FJQC’s stance that dismissal at this stage is inappropriate.
The response concludes by urging the Hearing Panel to deny Peffer’s motion to dismiss and allow the matter to proceed to a formal hearing for resolution.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
