Abramson Fiasco Argued at Supreme Court

This from the late afternoon edition of the Daily Business Review- a detailed article by Bud Newman addressing the constitutional crisis facing the Supreme Court in whether to seat Bill Abramson.

We offer on the blog just some excerpts from the thoughtful article....

A skeptical Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on whether Gov. Charlie Crist must sign a judicial commission for Palm Beach Circuit Judge-elect William Abramson even though his law license has been suspended for 91 days. “It seems completely absurd, and I think the general public would find it ludicrous, that someone who can’t practice law” can still be a judge, Justice Barbara Pariente said. However, she added, “We’re not dealing with [Florida Bar] policy, we’re looking at the Constitution” and what it requires or prohibits.

Tallahassee attorney Mark Herron of Messer Caparello & Self, who argued Abramson’s case, conceded to Pariente that “it may be absurd” for Abramson to preside in a courtroom when he is temporarily ineligible to practice law but said the Constitution does not bar a suspended lawyer from being a judge. He said it only requires a circuit judge to have been a member of The Florida Bar for the previous five years — a requirement Abramson meets.

“Our case is Abramson is eligible,” Herron told the court, citing Bar rules. Chief Justice Peggy Quince asked Herron whether there is “something kind of screwy about this situation” in which a suspended lawyer might still be a judge. Herron agreed with Quince but quickly added that “I’m not saying it. The Constitution is saying it.”

Attorney Stephen Grimes of Holland & Knight’s Tallahassee office — one of two former Florida justices arguing for The Bar — acknowledged the state Constitution does not have specific language barring a lawyer in bad standing with The Bar from becoming a judge. However, he argued the Supreme Court has ruled in other cases that the constitutional language is used “unless you reach an unreasonable or an absurd result.”

Justice Charles Wells appeared to agree. If Abramson’s commission is signed, he said, “You would be confronted with what would be a very harmful and absurd situation for the judiciary.”

--------------------

It was Charles Dickens who once wrote that sometimes 'the law is an ass.' Here it most certainly is. There once was a time when you did not have to be a lawyer to be a judge in Florida, but that was eons ago. So let's employ common sense and simply say that Abramson has a right to serve on the bench the moment his suspension is up and he is reinstated, assuming it is within the time parameters of his term that he was elected to serve. The Governor has to appoint a placeholder in his stead. (Of course I can see a subsequent argument being made that when the race was called and the trumpet sounded, he was unqualified to be at the gate and take the seat, and thus it is lost forever- but that is an argument for another day.)

This constitutional dilemma is quirky for sure, but not beyond judicial interpretation. Some would say it is not all that hard to figure out. You have to be a member in good standing just to be a traffic hearing officer or magistrate. It is a logical and reasonable extension that a constitutional interpretation of the 'five year rule' incorporates the principle that you must be a member of the Bar in good standing to be a judge. Laws are read in para materia with their companion statutes and legislative intentions. The Court has to give breadth to the spirit of the law as well as its letters.

What is your opinion?