JEAC SAYS MAGISTRATE MAY NOT ACCEPT FEE FOR FAMILY LAW TESTIMONY
A general magistrate may not receive compensation for preparation and testimony in a family law case involving work the magistrate performed as a social service investigator before taking the magistrate position, according to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.
In Opinion 2026-07, issued September 8, the advisory committee said that because the magistrate indicated that he or she would “prepare” with the attorney and charge an appearance fee, the panel inferred that the anticipated testimony would not be limited to authenticating the contents of prior reports the magistrate had prepared. Instead, the magistrate would offer observations and opinions about the reports’ substantive content.
“In other words, the magistrate will be appearing as something akin to an expert witness, albeit concerning matters the magistrate had already recorded prior to becoming a magistrate,” the JEAC panel said. “We were not informed whether the subpoena requires attendance in the same circuit the magistrate serves. Regardless, our answer to the question of whether the magistrate may permissibly charge a fee is ‘no.’”
The inquiring magistrate said that before taking the current position, he or she regularly served as a social service investigator in family law cases and had received a subpoena to testify in a pending family law case. The magistrate’s last report was completed in 2024, and a prior report was submitted in 2022. The magistrate asked whether the standard $695 fee for court appearances could be collected.
The ethics panel said it had not addressed an issue quite like this before and that the question implicated several provisions of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.
Canon 1 states that judges and general magistrates “should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.” Canon 2(A), in turn, provides that a judge or general magistrate “shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
While those canons touch on the issue, they do not provide a clear answer to the precise question, the JEAC said.
For example, the magistrate is not volunteering to testify — the magistrate was subpoenaed — but would receive compensation for the testimony. That aspect of the query has a voluntary connotation that could reflect a level of partiality, depending on the substance of the testimony.
“In Fla. JEAC Op. 2005-10, we opined that a senior judge who served in a dependency division should not testify as an expert in a proceeding regarding the retired judge’s request for receiver’s fees,” the JEAC said.
The panel noted, however, that the inquiring magistrate is not a judge, and “unlike judges, ‘magistrates and hearing officers may ethically practice law in certain areas during their tenure in such positions.’”
Earlier this year, the JEAC opined that a magistrate could work in a forum where the subject matter “did not appear to overlap” with the magistrate’s regular service.
“Here, it appears to be the opposite,” the opinion states. “The magistrate serves in a family law division. The testimony sought is in a family law proceeding. The risk of an appearance of partiality relating to the issues that would likely come before the magistrate in the future is not negligible. More worrying, the risk that the magistrate’s position as a family law magistrate would ‘lend credence’ to whatever the magistrate’s testimony would be in a family law proceeding is obvious. And all the more so if the magistrate is being called to testify in the circuit in which the magistrate serves.”
The panel concluded that the magistrate should refrain from charging a fee for the testimony.
“Furthermore, we would again relay that the magistrate should inform the presiding judge that they are not ethically permitted to provide expert testimony in this instance.”
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.
