Judge Dana Santino Fights to Stay on Bench After JQC Recommends Her Removal

[caption id="attachment_6350" align="aligncenter" width="621"]

Dana Marie Santino.[/caption] Palm Beach County Court Judge Dana Santino is fighting for her job after a Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission panel recommended her removal from the bench over political attacks on her opponent during the 2016 election. Santino "admitted mistakes" in the campaign but said they didn't rise to the level requiring her removal from the bench under Article V of Florida's Constitution. She asked the state Supreme Court, which has the final word on judicial discipline, to "reject the JQC's recommendation because the evidence in this case does not establish a 'present unfitness to hold office.'" "Judge Santino deeply regrets the campaign violations that underlie this proceeding and will take no steps in this pleading to justify or minimize them," her attorney, Jeremy Kroll of Bogenschutz Dutko & Kroll, wrote in response to the high court's Sept. 28 order to show cause. "Respondent, however, demonstrates good cause why the hearing panel’s legal conclusions and recommendations should not be approved by this court." Santino practiced law for 16 years before running for office against criminal defense attorney Gregg Lerman in 2016. She used paid consultants who created campaign material, including a social media page purporting to show “The Truth About Gregg Lerman.” The page used an image of Lerman at the center of derogatory phrases including “internet solicitation of minors,” “drug trafficking,” “murder” and "sexual assault." It claimed the defense attorney “made a lot of money trying to free Palm Beach County’s worst criminals.” The judge later defended the campaign material—a violation of judicial canon that govern judges' behavior, according the JQC. "Judge Santino's post-election remarks that discipline would 'probably be a fine' and was 'no big deal' confirm that a fine or suspension would be inadequate, and treated as the routine cost of doing business," Sumter Circuit Judge Michelle T. Morley wrote on behalf of the state judicial panel recommending Santino's ouster. "A suspension without pay would also have the 'unavoidable consequence' of punishing the circuit and its citizens by a vacancy in the position." At a hearing Aug. 2, Palm Beach Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Colbath testified Santino's work in the county court was "exemplary." He said the judge inherited a busy division but worked hard to reduce that number to the lowest case count in the civil division. He depicted her as a jurist with a powerful worth ethic and that led her to volunteer for weekend proceedings in civil drug court. The weekend assignment involved no perks—“no extra compensation” or “no extra real pat on the back,” Colbath said. But the JQC found against Santino. "We do not make this recommendation of removal lightly, or without due consideration of its severity. We are mindful of—and heavy-hearted about—the testimony of Judge Santino's witnesses that she is beloved by many, and a judge with a strong work ethic," Morley wrote. "However, were we to countenance her studied and continued refusal to abide by Canon 7, we would ourselves be undermining the rules governing judicial elections." Santino's lawyer detailed the chief judge's testimony in his client's response to the high court. He noted Santino had no Florida Bar disciplinary history before rising to the bench, a history of advocacy for community based drug treatment programs and an “instrumental” role in persuading the State Attorney’s Office to support diversion programs. Kroll also cited legal precedent In re Decker, in which the Florida Supreme Court ordered a six-month suspension, public reprimand and court costs for Hamilton Circuit Judge Andrew J. Decker, accused of violating campaign restrictions during his judicial campaign and violating ethics rules as an attorney. He argued that in considering Santino's case, the court should also find the behavior didn't warrant removal from the bench. "Her campaign violations were wrong, and she fully acknowledges her mistakes," Kroll wrote. "This honorable court should, like In re Decker, levy a serious sanction consistent with this misconduct."