Michael Moline
St. Lucie County Judge Philip Yacucci Jr. faces discipline for failing to recuse himself from litigation handled by an attorney he sent to jail for contempt of court, who ran against him, and with whom he got into a “altercation” at a polling station.
The Florida Judicial Qualifications filed notice Thursday that it found probable cause to bring charges against Yacucci under numerous articles of the judicial canon.
“Your conduct constitutes inappropriate conduct in violation of … the Code of Judicial Conduct,” the commission said.
Yacucci won re-election in August 2014 against the attorney, Stephen Smith.
According to the commission, Yacucci jailed Smith for five days in 2014 after finding him in contempt involving his representation of a client. He also referred the matter to The Florida Bar, which took no action against the attorney.
Later that year, Smith filed to run against Yacucci. The altercation happened after, Yacucci said, Smith made “grossly inappropriate comments” about the judge’s wife.
Smith alleged that Yacucci “physically assaulted him, shouted obscenities, and threatened to kill him,” the commission said. Police were called, but made no arrests.
During a televised interview inside his courtroom, Yacucci said that Smith “should not be a lawyer. He should not be in a courtroom. Mr. Smith is truly a disgrace as a judicial candidate and really as a human being.”
The judge sued for alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Yacucci obtained an injunction against Smith, but it was dissolved on appeal.
Smith filed his own lawsuit, alleging wrongful injunction, assault, and battery, but the antagonists later agreed to withdraw their complaints.
In early 2015, the commission summoned Yacucci to inform him of its concerns “about your inappropriate conduct and interactions” with Smith during the campaign. The judge for a time recused from Smith’s cases.
In September and November of this year, Smith filed motions urging Yacucci to recuse himself from cases in which he represented clients. Yacucci agreed in one case, but refused in two others.
When Smith complained, Yacucci filed written responses detailing his conflicts with Smith. Regarding the first response, the commission concluded that, “to a reasonable person, your pleading appeared to demonstrate that you should have disqualified yourself.”
The commission added: “Indeed, because your pleading in response to the prohibition case appeared to place you in an adversary position to the petitioner, your filing also represents a separate and independent ground for disqualification.”
Yacucci appeared before the commission on Dec. 2 and insisted disqualification was unnecessary because he did not “hold any ill feelings toward Mr. Smith” and believed he “could be impartial to his clients.”
He conceded that, in least one of the cases, Smith had reasonable cause to doubt his objectivity “but nevertheless denied his otherwise legally sufficient motion to disqualify you,” the commission said.
The panel gave Yacucci 20 days to file a written answer to the charges.
