Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Hot mic gets judge in hot water

Reprints
Hot mic

A Florida compensation claims judge who commented about a wordy attorney on a hot mic ended up being the one who said too much.

Judge Edward Almeyda conducted a lengthy video conference with attorneys on a case, after which he asked an off-camera staff member if he was “nice and sweet and patient to let the attorney talk on and on and on ad nauseam.” 

The petitioner’s attorney, whom the comment was allegedly about, overheard the judge’s comment and filed a motion to disqualify him from the case for potential bias.
The motion was found to be legally insufficient because the comment did not single out the petitioners’ attorney as the ‘loquacious one’ and even if it had, that would not be enough to establish a basis for the petitioners to fear a bias on the judge’s part, the court said.

However, the Florida District Court of Appeal for the 1st District in Tallahassee overturned that decision and removed Judge Almeyda from the case Friday after reviewing a response filed on his behalf by the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims refuting any alleged partiality. The response said the judge did not raise his voice to counsel and “allowed both sides to fully make their arguments, resulting in what would normally be a 5- to 10-minute hearing lasting over an hour.”

The appeals court said that response implied the petitioners’ allegations in the motion to disqualify were an incomplete account of the factual circumstances bearing on the judge’s impartiality. The court reminded the office that it is not obligated to file a response in such proceedings and doing so could make things worse for the judge.

The court quoted the ruling in the 1992 case Fabber v. Wessel, saying “It is much the better practice … for the judge to remain silent and let the adversarial party supply the response.”

 

 

Read Next

  • Lloyd’s pours ‘City lunch’ down the drain

    With much grumbling from office workers used to a drink or two at noon, Lloyd’s of London has told its 800 employees that they are not allowed to drink alcohol during business hours, eliminating the deal-heavy “City lunch” concept.