ADRIEN in the news again .....
Rumpole's 3rd DCA review forgot to include a case involving Judge Adrien.
The case was a simple run of the mill slip and fall. It was defended by Frank Angones, (former President of The Florida Bar). Angones moved to disqualify Adrien because, back in 2004, Angones had file suit against Adrien over Adrien's use of the "Camacho" name he was using during his election for Circuit Court Judge.
Adrien denied the recusal motion. The 3rd DCA REVERSED and ruled that "the Motion to recuse should have been granted".
Kendall 162 v. Pineda.
Cap Out ....
As the record demonstrates, and as the respondent’s counsel has appropriately agreed, the motion to recuse should have been granted. See Siegel v. State, 861 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). As such, we grant prohibition.
Rumpole says: Since the Respondent agreed to the motion to recuse, the only party involved in this motion who could not see the OBVIOUS conflict was the trial Judge. How sad all this time and resources had to be expended on something that was so basic and simple.