Attorneys for Circuit Judge Rose Marie Preddy argue opponent should be disqualified
Former circuit judge Scott DuPont should not be allowed to run for a return to the bench because he fails to meet qualification requirements, according to a motion filed by attorneys for incumbent Circuit Judge Rose Marie Preddy in the latest round of the legal fight.
The Florida Supreme Court in a 2018 unanimous vote removed DuPont from the bench. The state Supreme Court stated then that DuPont was unfit to serve and cited both egregious campaign and judicial canon violations.
The Florida Supreme Court also suspended DuPont in 2019 from practicing law. The suspension is the key issue in the legal battle as DuPont, who now lives in Palm Coast, tries to return to the bench.
DuPont is challenging Preddy, who lives in St. Johns County and was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis as a circuit judge in 2023, to the 7th Circuit, which covers Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns and Putnam counties.
DuPont’s motion responding to Preddy's attorneys is due Monday.
Circuit Judge Lee Marsh has set a final hearing for May 29 at the Leon County Courthouse in Tallahassee.
The latest motion from Preddy's attorneys repeats some of the previously published arguments against DuPont.
Scott DuPont not eligible to run, motion states
DuPont was suspended from the practice of law for 91 days effective Oct. 21, 2019. The fact that the state Supreme Court suspended DuPont for 91 days and not 90 days meant that he would have to apply for reinstatement. DuPont was reinstated June 30, 2020, according to the motion by Preddy’s attorneys, Barry Richard and Daniel Nordby.
That means DuPont was not a member of the Florida Bar for eight months.
But to serve as a circuit judge, an attorney must be a member of the Florida Bar for the preceding five years.
DuPont was reinstated less than four years ago, the motion states, meaning he has not been a bar member for the previous five years.
Preddy's attorneys cited a prior decision by the Florida Supreme Court that the phrase “a member of the bar of Florida” means “a member with the privilege to practice law.”
The motion also cited a 1st District Court of Appeal decision affirming a lower court ruling that attorney Beverly McCallum was not eligible to run for state attorney for the 8th Circuit because she had been suspended from the practice of law for 15 days in 2019 and therefore failed to meet the requirement that a person be a member of the Florida Bar for the preceding five years.
Preddy’s motion also asks the court for a permanent injunction ordering that supervisors of elections and the Division of Elections not certify DuPont as a candidate, not include DuPont's name on any ballots printed for the general election, and not tabulate, report or certify any votes cast for DuPont.
Anthony Sabatini to file motion for Scott DuPont
Attorney Anthony Sabatini, who represents DuPont, said in a phone interview that the legal issue is more complex than it seems and partly involves whether the 1st District Court of Appeal has jurisdiction on who is a member of the bar.
Sabatini also said that the state Supreme Court definition is “one such definition,” but being a member of the Florida Bar could entail other types of memberships. He said he doesn't believe that it means anyone who is suspended is automatically not a member.
Sabatini also said that beyond the legal issues, the case was an attempt to limit voters’ choice in an election.
Sabatini said that looking at it from a commonsense perspective, DuPont was a member of the bar, he was just “briefly suspended.”
When asked why DuPont should get a chance to return to the bench after being removed in a unanimous vote by the state Supreme Court, Sabatini said people make mistakes.
“I would say that all lawyers and judges do make some mistakes,” Sabatini said. “I think his character is that he owned up to that and he has been very transparent and forthright about the few mistakes that he made.”
In a phone interview, Preddy’s lawyer, Richard, said the issue was not about voters' choice.
“This has nothing to do with voters' choices,” Richard said. “This has everything to do with the law.”
Richard countered that eligibility requirements exists to protect the public.
“It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about a surgeon or a judge or any other field,” Richard said. “You can always say people are being denied the right, but that’s why we have requirements to protect the public.”
This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Scott DuPont, booted from bench, not qualified to run, attorneys argue
