Ethics, morals missing in debate over judge's lapse

I have been following with interest the recent charges filed by the "Judicial Qualifications Commission" against Circuit Judge John Lakin for accepting Ray's baseball tickets.

Recently, Mr. Carl Weeks, in his letter to the editor, defended the law firm by comparing the donating of tickets to a judge the same as giving tickets to a charity. LeeAnn Metz in her Feb. 13 letter to the editor hits the nail on the head with her use of incredulous to describe the excuse of "lack of experience/and ignorance" as a reason for not knowing it is improper to receive gifts of any fashion by a judge.

I would like to interject two words that have not been used in the commentaries describing the act by the judge and the act by the law firm. The words are "morals" and "ethics."

All elected public officials and appointed public officials are held to a higher standard than the general public. A judge is held to the highest standard.

You do not need to know the judicial canons to know what is right and wrong. Judicial Canon 1 "... Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." This is Ethics 101.

Webster describes morals as: "based on the principle of right conduct rather than legality." Public trust has been severely violated by both parties.

The legal profession is "self-policed." They have an obligation to do things right. The firm of Kallins, Little and Delgado, I assume, would also have in place policies regarding "ethics." If they do not, they should. They are as responsible in this misconduct as the judge. Hopefully, sanctions of some fashion are levied against both.

Richard L. Stage

Bradenton

This story was originally published February 28, 2016 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Ethics, morals missing in debate over judge's lapse ."