The state's Judicial Qualifications Commission, however, has heard quite enough. At the commission's recommendation, the Florida Supreme Court was scheduled to publicly reprimand Schwartz last month for his rudeness in the courtroom. The court's written admonition brought to light the fact that the JQC had heard three similar complaints against Schwartz. Twice in 1993 and once in 1996, the document revealed, the commission had quietly warned the judge "to refrain from making rude, impatient and discourteous remarks from the bench."
Such warnings and the complaints that prompted them usually remain confidential under the commission's rules. "A lot of times we can sort of do missionary work with the judges," explains the JQC's executive director, Brooke Kennerly. But the fourth complaint, brought on behalf of two Miami law students and their professor, finally exhausted the JQC's patience.
According to the reprimand, Schwartz berated legal interns from St. Thomas University twice in 1998 for arguing cases that he believed were frivolous. "Are you aware I can sanction legal interns?" Schwartz asked one intern before walking out in the middle of oral arguments.
Months later, he similarly criticized a case being argued by another St. Thomas University student, then loudly addressed St. Thomas Professor Amy Ronner: "So this is what you call training?"
Such remarks come as no surprise to the lawyers whose practice puts them in regular contact with Schwartz. And though he is hardly the first judge to lose patience with a lawyer, even veteran lawyers can find Schwartz a bit hard to take. "He's in a class by himself," says one, who asked not to be identified.
Even Schwartz's lawyer, Robert Beckham, of Holland & Knight in Jacksonville, acknowledges his client's reputation. "There's no question that as the years have gone by there has been a growing body of lore," Beckham says.
But Beckham says that Schwartz's remarks -- while "rash" and "overzealous" at times -- are not without provocation. "He has expressed dismay at the ill-prepared and ill-conceived appeals that come into his courtroom from time to time. He doesn't suffer fools very well."
Schwartz's critics, however, will tell you that the judge's definition of a fool is relatively broad. "My guess is it's anybody he simply disagrees with," says another lawyer, who also asked not to be identified. In fact, lawyers who practice regularly before the appeals justices -- who generally hear cases as three-judge panels -- say Schwartz's fellow judges are often visibly uncomfortable when he launches into invective.
The fact that his behavior has been tolerated for so long testifies to Schwartz's legal ability. Observers say his legal skills are as good as his interpersonal skills are bad. Even critics use words like "brilliant," and longtime colleagues say he turns out first-rate legal analysis on the first draft. The other judges on the 3rd District Court of Appeal have elected him chief judge nine times.
In fact, some suspect that Schwartz, a 1958 graduate of Harvard Law School whom Gov. Reubin Askew appointed to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in 1978, would be on the Florida Supreme Court if not for his abrasive personality. For his part, Schwartz sent a letter of apology to Ronner and the legal interns and has agreed to "a program of personal counseling and stress management."
Contest: A Score to Settle
John Ransom sank a hole-in-one on the 12th green during a Fernandina Beach Chamber of Commerce golf tournament three years ago, but lawyers for the Chamber, a sponsor and a Dodge dealership are still arguing over his score.
Ransom claims he's entitled to the Dodge Ram pickup truck promised as the prize for the Saturday hole-in-one contest. The Chamber and co-sponsors First Coast Community Bank and Rick Keffer Dodge-Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep say the contest rules required that the hole-in-one had to be made on the ninth hole. As evidence of that, they say, the truck was parked next to the ninth hole.
That sounds more convincing than it looked, says Ransom's Jacksonville lawyer, John N. Bryant. The truck was in the parking lot, which happened to be behind the ninth hole, says Bryant. There were no signs or contest literature that specified the ninth hole, he says. Meanwhile, lawyers on both sides are racking up legal fees that threaten to surpass the estimated $27,000 prize value. The case has already bounced from the trial court to the 1st District Court of Appeal and back to the trial court. But, says Chamber Executive Vice President Shane Adams: "It's really the principle of the thing more than anything else."
Workers' Comp: 'Should Have Known'
Florida employers may be sued for on-the-job accidents if there is evidence that a company "should have known" its conduct was likely to result in injury or death, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled. The ruling stems from a 1991 Gainesville chemical plant explosion that killed one man and injured two others.
In general, employees can't sue their employers for on-the-job accidents because employers provide their workers with guaranteed workers' compensation insurance. There are exceptions, but some courts have only allowed lawsuits in cases when an employer actually intended or knew for certain that an injury would occur.
The Supreme Court ruled that a different standard should apply -- the "should have known'' standard that applies to defendants in most other areas of "intentional tort'' law.