Opinion
No. 2D21-3577
05-27-2022
Saverio MONGELLI, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. d/b/a TGH Brandon Healthplex, a Florida for-profit corporation; and The Surgery Center At Tgh Brandon Healthplex, LLC, a Florida for-profit limited liability company, Respondents.
Joel Roth and Sagi Shaked, of Shaked Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for Petitioner. Gabrielle Osborne and Kaitlin V. Rosenthal, of Beytin, McLaughlin, McLaughlin, O'Hara & Bocchino, P.A., Tampa, for Respondents.
Joel Roth and Sagi Shaked, of Shaked Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for Petitioner.
Gabrielle Osborne and Kaitlin V. Rosenthal, of Beytin, McLaughlin, McLaughlin, O'Hara & Bocchino, P.A., Tampa, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM.
Saverio Mongelli petitions for a writ of prohibition to disqualify the trial court judge from presiding over this negligence action. In short, Mongelli asserts that he will not receive a fair trial because the judge stated during a discovery hearing that Mongelli's counsel seemed unnecessarily angry and subsequently referred counsel to the Hillsborough County Local Professionalism Panel for assistance in anger management and counseling in professionalism. According to Mongelli, this referral has resulted in a "well-founded fear" that the judge does not trust his counsel and will now look "with suspicion" on every position that counsel takes. See Gregory v. State , 118 So. 3d 770, 778 (Fla. 2013) (explaining that a motion to disqualify is legally sufficient if the facts alleged "would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial" (quoting Rodriguez v. State , 919 So. 2d 1252, 1274 (Fla. 2005) )). We disagree.
Although Mongelli invoked this court's certiorari jurisdiction, prohibition is the proper vehicle for review of a trial court's denial of a motion to disqualify. See Sutton v. State , 975 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 2008). We therefore convert his petition for writ of certiorari into a petition for writ of prohibition and address it accordingly. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) ("If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought ....").
In 2013, the Florida Supreme Court directed that professionalism panels be established in each judicial circuit. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Hillsborough County) Local Professionalism Panel is a nonpunitive program intended to mentor and advise attorneys who may need further guidance on the professionalism and courtesy expected of an attorney. The panel contemplates that most professionalism complaints will be resolved informally, with more serious cases resulting in referral to either local or Florida Bar-sponsored workshops in subject areas such as professionalism or stress management. See Professionalism Committee , Administrative Order S-2020-060 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Nov. 18, 2020), superseded by Administrative Order, S-2022-007 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Apr. 27, 2022).
Although Mongelli equates the referral of his counsel to a local professionalism panel for discourtesy with a challenge to his counsel's integrity or ethics, we emphasize that they are not the same. The judges of this state have a responsibility to promote courtesy and professionalism in their courts. The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges "participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct," "require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge," and require lawyers subject to their discretion and control to be "patient, dignified, and courteous." Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canons 1, 3B(3), 3(B)(4). Accordingly, a trial court judge may refer a lawyer perceived as discourteous to a local professionalism panel without concern that he or she, by that action alone, will be subject to disqualification. Cf. 5-H Corp. v. Padovano , 708 So. 2d 244, 248 (Fla. 1997) ("[A] Florida judge's mere reporting of perceived attorney unprofessionalism to The Florida Bar, in and of itself, is legally insufficient to support judicial disqualification.").
To be sure, a judge who questions the veracity or ethics of a party or counsel may be subject to disqualification depending on the unique facts of the case. See, e.g. , Brown v. St. George Island, Ltd. , 561 So. 2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1990) (holding that disqualification was warranted when judge allegedly said about a party, "I wouldn't believe him anyway"); Afanasiev v. Alvarez , 319 So. 3d 697, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (granting writ of prohibition because "[t]he ethical breaches described in the [referring judge's] Bar complaint concern untruthfulness and raise the prospect of a courtroom in which the judge distrusts the lawyer"); Kline v. JRD Mgmt. Corp. , 165 So. 3d 812, 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (distinguishing 5-H Corp. , 708 So. 2d at 248, and holding that judge of compensation claims should have disqualified himself after he went beyond the "mere reporting of unprofessionalism" and found that the petitioner's attorney had acted dishonestly, had committed at least one crime, and "was not worthy of belief"). But even accepting Mongelli's factual allegations as true, the trial court judge here did no more than laudably fulfill her obligation to promote decorum by reporting unprofessionalism.
Petition denied.
LaROSE, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.