GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE COURT'S AGENDA, TODAY, IS REGARDING THE INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE LUZZO. IF YOU WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH, SIR TO COME TO THE PODIUM. JUDGE LUZZO, THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN COMMANDED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT THIS MORNING ARE MOST UNFORTUNATE, NOT ONLY FOR YOU PERSONALLY BUT FOR THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION AS A WHOLE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATION COMMISSION'S UNCONTESTED RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU RECEIVE A PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR OPINION IN RE FRANK, WE HAVE INVITED YOU TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT IN PERSON TO RECEIVE THIS REPRIMAND. THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION CHARGED YOU WITH VIOLATING CANNON 1, 2-A, 3-B AND 3-E TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR ACCEPTING FLORIDA MARLINS BASEBALL GAMES 1984-1987, FROM LAWYERS APPEARING BEFORE YOU IN AT LEAST THREE CASES. IN RESPONSE TO THESE CHARGES YOU ENTERED A STIPULATION WITH THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION, AND IN THE STIPULATION, YOU ADMITTED THAT, DURING THE YEAR 1994, 95, 96 AND 97, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, YOU RECEIVED TICKETS, FREE TICKETS, TO THE FLORIDA MARLINS BASEBALL GAMES, FROM TWO FRIENDS WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE LAW FIRM OF BILLING, COCHRAN, LYLES AND MORROW, PA. DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH YOU RECEIVED THESE TICKETS, LAWYERS FROM THIS FIRM NOT ONLY WERE LIKELY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU BUT WERE BEFORE YOU AS COUNSEL IN AT LEAST TWO CASES. BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT YOUR COOPERATION AND YOUR CANDOR, YOUR EXPRESSIONS OF REMORSE, YOUR GENERAL REPUTATION AS A FAIR, IMPARTIAL AND COMPETENT JUDGE, YOUR PREVIOUSLY UNBLEMISHED RECORD IN YOUR 18 YEARS OF SERVICE AS A JUDGE, THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE CHAIRED AND SERVED ON NUMEROUS FLORIDA BAR AND JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEES IN FURTHERING THE PRACTICE AND PROFESSIONLISM OF THE BENCH AND THE BAR AND THE FACT THAT YOU RESIGNED AS THE CHAIRPERSON ELECT OF THE FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT JUDGES, IN LIGHT OF THESE CHARGES, THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL CONCLUDED THAT A PUBLIC REPRIMAND WAS APPROPRIATE. WE AGREE THAT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WEIGH IN FAVOR OF A PUBLIC REPRIMAND. AND WE HAVE REQUIRED YOU TO APPEAR, TODAY, FINDING THAT THE PANEL'S RECOMMENDATION IS SUPPORTED BY YOUR FORMAL STIPULATION AND CON FORMS WITH ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT. THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT CONTAINS THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES BY WHICH OUR JUDICIARY IS GOVERNED AND MUST BE ADHERED TO BY ALL JUDGES IN THE STATE. CANNES ONE ONE OF THE -- CANON ONE OF THE CODE WHICH YOU VIOLATED STATES THAT A JUDGE SHOULD PARTICIPATE AND ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN HIGH STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND SHOULD PERSONALLY OBSERVE THOSE STANDARDS, SO THAT THE INTEGRITY AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY MAY BE PRESERVED. CANON 2-A, WHICH YOU, ALSO, RESPECT, STATES THAT A JUDGE SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND IN A MANNER AT ALL TIMES WHICH PROMOTES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY. THESE CONCEPTS OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY, IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE ARE THE CORNERSTONES UPON WHICH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM WAS BUILT, AND THEY ARE SPECIFIC CANONS THAT ADDRESS THE IMPROPRIETY OF ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM PEOPLE WHO APPEAR BEFORE YOU. PART B OF CANON TWO PROVIDES THAT A JUDGE SHOULD NOT POLITICAL, FAMILY, OR OTHER SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS TO INFLUENCE A JUDGE OR JUDGMENT. A JUDGE SHOULD NOT PERMIT OTHERS TO CONVEY THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE IN A SPECIAL POSITION TO INFLUENCE THE JUDGE. CANON 3-E, WHICH YOU, ALSO, VIOLATED, REQUIRES THE JUDGE TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE JUDGE'S IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED, AND FINALLY, IN CANON 5, THERE ARE RULES THAT SAY A JUDGE SHALL NOT ACCEPT A GIFT, BEQUEST, FAVOR OR LOAN, BUT SECTION 5-D AND 5-H PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE DONOR IS NOT A PARTY OR OTHER PERSON WHO IS LIKELY TO COME OR WHOSE INTERESTS HAVE COME OR ARE LIKELY TO COME BEFORE THE JUDGE. DURING THE TIME YOU RECEIVED THESE TICKETS, LAWYERS FROM THE FIRM WERE NOT ONLY LIKELY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU BUT ACTUALLY DID APPEAR BEFORE YOU AS DEFENSE COUNSEL IN AT LEAST TWO CASES. THERE FOR YOUR CONDUCT WAS SQUARELY IN VIOLATION OF THESE CANONS. JUDGE LUZZO, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS I AM PRO TO ACCEPT THESE -- IMPROPER TO ACCEPT THESE FREE BASEBALL TICKETS FROM ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM THAT WAS APPEARING BEFORE YOU. YOU HAVE, IN FACT, STATED TO THE COMMISSION THAT YOU FULLY COMPREHEND HOW ACCEPTANCE OF THE TICKETS COULD APPEAR TO BE IMPROPER. INDEED, BICEPING THESE GIFTS, YOUR CONDUCT CREATED AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AND CALLED YOUR IMPARTIALITY INTO QUESTION. AS YOU WELL KNOW, OUR COUNTRY HAS SURVIVED THESE 213 YEARS SINCE ITS FORMATION, IN LARGE PART BECAUSE WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY. THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY HAS BEEN, IS NOW, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE CRITICAL, IN CONTINUING THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REQUIRED FOR OUR SURVIVAL AS A FREE AND ORDERED SOCIETY. AND WHEN A JUDGE'S IMPARTIALITY IS CALLED INTO QUESTION AND IT REFLECTS NOT ONLY ON THE JUDGE PERSONALLY BUT ON THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY, AND IT UNDERMINES THE PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, WE, ON THIS COURT, SINCERELY HOPE THAT THIS PUBLIC REPRIMAND ADMINISTERED BEFORE THIS COURT, WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU AND TO OTHER JUDGES THAT SUCH MISCONDUCT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. PUBLIC REPRIMAND IS NOW CONCLUDED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE.