S P E C I A L
F E A T U R E
by Mike Hooker - Phelps Dunbar LLP
Continued from page 21
Q: You also taught for several years at Stetson Law
School. What course did you teach there?
A: I still do — I did last night. I teach Trial Advocacy.
We learn the basics of opening statements, questioning
witnesses, admitting evidence and cross-examination. I
think when you teach something, it helps you be sharp and
stay on top of things ... Rules of Evidence, stuff like that.
Q: In 2008, you were appointed to the Circuit Court
by Governor Crist, where you spent time handling civil,
probate, and family law matters. Did you enjoy handling
non-criminal matters?
A: Yeah, I’ve always liked the different types of law.
That’s one of the good things about federal court — the
cases are different. It’s not the same thing every day. But
in state court, I always gravitated back to doing criminal
cases because the criminal lawyers almost always get
along with each other; they like each other. It’s a very
pleasant professional world. If we were criminal lawyers,
I could just call you on the phone and say “Mike, you
know, I need another 30 days on this,” and you would
probably say “Fine” and that would be the end of it. On
the criminal side of things, it’s very professional, very
pleasant. It’s actually enjoyable to practice law for the
most part on the criminal side of things. So when it
comes to professionalism, criminal is much more civil
than civil.
Q: Do you think that’s because these criminal lawyers
are coming into contact with one another on a more
regular basis?
A: Absolutely. They know each other; they’ve worked
together for years. Nobody wants to get a reputation for
being dishonest or unethical because they know
everybody’s going to see each other again on another case
very soon. And that’s one of the things I’ve been
thinking about in connection with doing more hearings
in Federal Court. Hearings build some familiarity, build
some regular contacts. I think that helps professionalism
... regularly seeing the judge, regularly seeing the lawyers,
is good for everybody.
Q: Can you point to any unique or really challenging
case during the time you were on the State bench?
A: Yes, there’s one that comes to mind. It was in
family law involving custody of a boy who was about ten
years old. I think my son was about that age at the same
time. The boy had been raised by his grandparents
essentially and the grandpa had just died, so it was kind
of sad. And for whatever reason, his mother, who had not
been part of his life, decided to come in, take him back
22
from the grandma, and raise him. Although the
grandparents were the only parents he ever really knew,
I was required to turn the custody over to the mother
since Florida law doesn’t really give grandparents any
kind of permanent rights. But the little boy did not want
to go. I was asked to meet with him, which I didn’t do a
lot of, but I did with him. The boy came to my office, and
he brought his report cards, certificates from school, and
good citizenship awards, and awards from Cub Scouts.
He was crying and he said basically, “I’ve done everything
right, why do I have to leave my grandma?” And that was
a very hard case because all I could really tell him was,
“That’s what the law requires.”
Q: That raises an interesting question. I’m sure as a
judge, you’re sometimes conflicted between what you’d
like to do and what the law compels you to do.
A: Yes. That happens a lot. But you just have to
accept the fact that the law is the ultimate authority,
not you and what you want to do. It comes up fairly
regularly where you have to do things you don’t
necessarily agree with.
Q: You also wrote a couple of articles about judicial
elections, including an article published here in the Lawyer
magazine, entitled Maintaining the Integrity of Judicial
Elections. Can you tell us a little about your experience
with the judicial election and campaign process?
A: That’s something I’ve just always been interested
in: Judicial selection, appointments, elections, how all that
works. I was involved in a couple of people’s campaigns
when they were running for judge, and I’ve kind of kept
my eye on how all that works. It’s interesting to me.
Q: Did you enjoy campaigning?
A: I enjoyed campaigning very much for other
people. [laughs] I am glad I did not have to run myself.
Because running for judge is very, very hard, and very
time-consuming.
Q: You were nominated for the federal bench by
President Trump in 2018 and enjoyed the support of
both Florida Senators from different parties — which
some might say is rather unusual in today’s political
climate. Do you have any views on the state of affairs
today regarding the confirmation process for federal
court appointees?
A: I’d say it’s too politically focused for District Court
nominees. The people in Washington are focused on the
issues that might come before the Supreme Court or
maybe the Circuit Court of Appeals. But that’s not what
we are doing at the District Court. They are looking at
Continued on page 23
JAN - FEB 2020
|
HCBA LAWYER