ETHICS PANEL SAYS JUDGE MAY DEVELOP, PROMOTE FREE FAMILY LAW SOFTWARE
A judge may develop a family law software program and make it available free of charge to litigants and attorneys, provided the judge receives no financial benefit, according to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.
Acting August 27 in Opinion No. 2026-06, the panel also said, subject to certain limitations, the judge may host a Zoom demonstration explaining the program’s tools to litigants, attorneys, or court staff and may have their name appear on the program platform as the developer.
The inquiring circuit judge presides over family law cases and personally developed and coded a free, web-based program that operates as a platform for parties to exchange mandatory disclosure documents pursuant to Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285. Upon completion of the required document exchange, the program emails the party a certificate of compliance.
The program also offers other tools, including:
- A child support calculator;
- A parenting plan builder;
- An equitable distribution worksheet/calculator; and
- A repository of Florida family law rules and standard forms.
The judge said the program is offered free of charge to all users and the judge receives no compensation, fees, or other financial benefit from its use. The platform operates under a trademarked name and does not currently identify the judge on the program website, although the judge is its sole developer and administrator.
The judge asked the committee whether it would be permissible to make litigants and attorneys aware of the platform, host demonstrations, and identify the judge as its developer.
The committee noted that Canon 4B states: “A judge is encouraged to speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other quasi-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government, subject to the requirements of this Code.”
The committee also cited Canon 5B, which encourages judges to participate in extrajudicial activities concerning nonlegal subjects, subject to the requirements of the Code.
“The development and offering of the software program by the inquiring judge falls within these Canons and, as such, is permissible,” the committee said.
The panel distinguished the case from a recent opinion involving a privately developed family law software program.
In Opinion 2026-04, the committee said a judge could not inform self-represented litigants about a third-party software tool that assisted parties in drafting a parenting plan. The software was developed and offered by a private family law attorney who practiced before the judge’s family law bench.
The committee said the circumstances were different in the latest case because the judge developed the software, intends to offer it free of charge, receives no financial benefit from it, and does not require any party or attorney to use it.
The committee said the judge’s proposed Zoom demonstrations and attribution of the program are “interwoven,” because demonstrating the software necessarily identifies the judge as its developer. Both are permissible, the committee said.
The panel cautioned, however, that the judge’s judicial duties take precedence over all other activities. Time spent on the program should be on the judge’s personal time, the ethics panel said.
The judge also should not mention the program from the bench because doing so could raise concerns about impartiality and could be viewed as promoting the program while acting as a judge.
The committee cited a 2011 opinion concerning judicial websites, which cautioned judges to ensure that material published online complies with all applicable provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
“Before publishing material on a website, the judge should carefully examine all provisions of the Code that relate to the site and its topics,” the committee said, quoting Opinion 2011-01, “to insure that the judge is not doing on the web something the judge could not ethically do in person.”
The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is charged with rendering advisory opinions to judges and judicial candidates on the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to specific circumstances. Although the opinions are advisory and not binding on the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Supreme Court may consider compliance with a committee opinion as evidence of a judge's good faith in disciplinary proceedings.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
