Background
Sandra Smith-Fullerton filed for dissolution of marriage in July 2023. The case was assigned to Judge Matthew Foxman, who presided over it for sixteen months. After retiring from the bench in November 2024, Foxman became a partner at the Doran Firm in early February 2025. The Doran Firm represented the husband in the dissolution proceeding. When the wife learned of this arrangement, she moved to disqualify the firm.
At the hearing, the founding partner of the Doran Firm stated that Foxman was hired to represent clients in criminal and family law—”anything he can do, he wants to do, he’s welcome.” A successor judge denied the motion to disqualify.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth DCA reversed, holding that the Doran Firm must be disqualified. The court found that a law firm’s employment of a former judge who presided over ongoing litigation involving the firm’s client creates an inherent appearance of impropriety that cannot be cured by screening or ethical walls alone. Judge Foxman had presided over the Fullertons’ dissolution for sixteen months—making rulings, observing testimony, and gaining intimate knowledge of the case—before joining the firm representing one party. The potential for actual or perceived unfair advantage was too great to be remedied by anything short of disqualification.
The court emphasized that the appearance-of-impropriety standard protects public confidence in the judicial system. Even if no actual confidences were shared, a reasonable observer would question the fairness of proceedings where one party’s law firm employs the judge who previously heard the case.
Key Takeaways
- A law firm must be disqualified from representing a party when it employs a former judge who presided over that same case, regardless of screening measures implemented.
- The appearance-of-impropriety standard requires disqualification where a reasonable observer would question the fairness of the proceedings.
- Sixteen months of presiding over a dissolution case gives a former judge intimate familiarity with the parties, evidence, and strategy that cannot be adequately screened.
Why It Matters
This case sends a clear message to Florida law firms considering hiring recently retired judges: the firm cannot continue representing clients in cases over which the new hire previously presided. For family law practitioners, the ruling is particularly impactful because dissolution cases involve prolonged judicial involvement and extensive judicial knowledge of parties’ finances, credibility, and litigation strategy. The decision protects the integrity of the process by ensuring that neither party gains—or appears to gain—an unfair advantage from a revolving-door arrangement between the bench and the bar.