On Monday, June 1, 2026, The Florida Bar announced that the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (JEAC) issued guidance regarding a judge’s involvement in a legal dispute surrounding their retirement.
The committee held that a judge cannot execute an affidavit prepared by counsel concerning the circumstances of their retirement letter submission. However, the judge may appear at a deposition related to the same subject, provided they adhere to the ethical constraints governing testimony in a pending proceeding.
The ethics panel’s decision came in Opinion Number 2026-03, released on May 28. The inquiry originated from a judge who had recently submitted a letter of retirement, effective December 31. A legal conflict emerged regarding this retirement when an election for the judge’s position was initially scheduled but later canceled. This cancellation occurred after the Governor’s Office declared its intention to fill the judicial vacancy through an appointment. The decision to cancel the election is currently the focus of a pending declaratory judgment action.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs in this legal action had requested that the inquiring judge provide a “brief, narrowly tailored affidavit.” This affidavit was intended to confirm specific alleged factual matters pertaining to the judge’s retirement letter. The request for the affidavit was partly motivated by a desire to avoid the necessity of taking the judge’s deposition.
The JEAC acknowledged that the judge’s concern about the applicability of Canon 2B was valid. This canon states, in part, that a judge must not use the prestige of their office to advance private interests or allow others to believe they have special influence with the judge. It also prohibits a judge from voluntarily testifying as a character witness.
While the most direct prohibition in this canon relates to character witness testimony, the committee noted its prior opinions have consistently cautioned judges against voluntarily providing testimony on factual matters. Such testimony is generally permissible only when compelled by a subpoena or in cases involving official investigations by law enforcement, The Florida Bar, or the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
The JEAC emphasized that the inquiring judge should be particularly cautious given the specific circumstances. The committee pointed out that the affidavit was sought in connection with a private civil dispute, not a criminal investigation or an inquiry by The Florida Bar or the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Furthermore, the affidavit was requested by an attorney representing one party in the dispute. The panel concluded that voluntarily drafting and submitting such an affidavit could be interpreted as assisting one side in a pending lawsuit, thereby creating the appearance that the judge was leveraging their judicial prestige to favor that party.
Regarding the second part of the inquiry—whether the judge could appear at a deposition if subpoenaed—the JEAC stated it had limited guidance based on the information provided. However, the committee reiterated that a judge remains bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct at all times, including when providing testimony in a deposition.
Therefore, the inquiring judge must remain cognizant of all judicial canons, including Canon 3B(12), which prohibits a judge from disclosing or using nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to their judicial duties.
Source: The Florida Bar
