## Facts

- The Law Offices of Herssein & Herssein, P.A. and an attorney at the firm were parties in Miami–Dade County circuit court litigation against United Services Automobile Association involving business-related claims.
- The firm moved to disqualify the trial judge under Florida’s disqualification procedures.
- The motion alleged the judge was Facebook “friends” with an attorney who represented a USAA executive described as a potential witness and potential party.
- The movants asserted this Facebook connection created a well-grounded fear they would not receive a fair and impartial trial and suggested the attorney could influence the judge.
- The trial judge denied the motion as legally insufficient.
- The Third District Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of prohibition, holding that a Facebook “friendship,” standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for disqualification.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted review due to conflict with a Fourth District decision that treated a similar Facebook “friendship” as sufficient to require disqualification.

## Issues

1. Whether a judge’s status as Facebook “friends” with an attorney appearing before the judge, standing alone, makes a motion to disqualify legally sufficient under Florida law.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writ of prohibition and approved the Third District’s decision.
- The Court held that alleging a judge is Facebook “friends” with an attorney appearing before the judge, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis for disqualification.
- The Court disapproved the conflicting district court decision to the extent it treated Facebook “friendship,” by itself, as requiring disqualification.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial disqualification is governed by Fla. Stat. § 38.10 and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330.
- A motion is legally sufficient only if the alleged facts would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.
- Legal sufficiency of a disqualification motion is reviewed de novo.
- Mere friendship between a judge and a litigant or attorney, without additional facts showing bias or special influence, is generally insufficient to require disqualification.
- A Facebook “friend” designation is ambiguous and may reflect anything from a close relationship to minimal or no real-world connection; therefore, it is not a per se indicator of partiality.
- Social-media connections may be relevant in combination with other facts, but the presence of a Facebook connection alone does not satisfy the objective standard for disqualification.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that a judge’s Facebook “friendship” with an attorney involved in a case, without additional facts suggesting bias or improper influence, does not objectively support a reasonable fear of unfairness and therefore does not require judicial disqualification.


Law Offices of Herssein & Herssein, P.A. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 271 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 2018)