Florida Judge Faces Formal Charges for Explosive Courtroom Behavior

Photo byTingey Injury Law FirmonUnsplash

Orange County Judge Jeffrey Ashton is facing formal charges from the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) for a series of alleged misconducts in court, including shouting at attorneys and displaying bias during multiple proceedings, according to case information published this week. The JQC's investigative panel voted to proceed with the charges after meetings held in March and September 2024, citing probable cause for formal action.

Judge Ashton, known for his role in high-profile cases, is accused of acting intemperately during various court sessions, failing to maintain the patience, dignity, and impartiality expected of judicial officers. Specific incidents referenced in the charges include:

• Randy Casey v. Hernando Lancheros (2017): Judge Ashton reportedly shouted at the plaintiff’s attorney in front of the jury and exhibited a bias that could have influenced the proceedings.
• Alisha Oliver v. Holly Swarthout (2021): Allegations of raised voices and bias during the hearing.
• Megan Regan v. Hernando Lancheros (2017): Judge Ashton allegedly threatened the plaintiff’s attorney with criminal contempt.
• Jain v. Baker (2023): The judge's behavior was described as lacking professionalism and courtesy towards the plaintiff's attorney.

Additionally, Judge Ashton’s conduct in Holt v. Nelson (2020) was brought into question when he denied a motion to disqualify himself after allegations of bias. The appellate court later reversed his decision, granting a writ of prohibition and criticizing Ashton for passing judgment on the truthfulness of the allegations—a violation of judicial standards.

This is not the first time Judge Ashton has been under scrutiny. In 2019, he was cautioned for similar behavior after being recorded shouting at an attorney during a divorce case.

The JQC has formally charged Ashton with violating multiple sections of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, raising questions about his ability to remain impartial and professional on the bench. He has 20 days to respond to the charges, which could ultimately impact his future as a judge.