WILLIAM J. WINDSOR AND MARTHA S. WINDSOR, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES B. GIBSON, AS PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a dismissal of a malpractice complaint against a public defender's office, holding that judicial immunity does not protect public defenders from liability for malpractice in representing clients. The court certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether judicial immunity bars malpractice suits against public defenders.
Judicial immunity does not protect public defenders from malpractice liability. Public defenders, as advocates owing duties only to their clients, are not entitled to the same immunity extended to judges and prosecutors, and must respond to malpractice complaints.
[1] Public defenders are not protected by judicial immunity from malpractice suits brought by former clients.
[2] The role of a public defender is that of an advocate for the client, similar to privately retained counsel, and does not extend the same immunity as judges or prosecutors…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Considerations which require that a judge and prosecutor be immune from liability for the exercise of duties essential to the administration of justice, do not require that the same immunity be extended to the public defender. While the prosecutor is an officer of the state whose duty it is to see that impartial justice is done, the public defender is an advocate, who once appointed owes a duty only to his client, the indigent defendant.”
Establishes the court's core reasoning distinguishing public defenders' role from prosecutors and judges, supporting denial of immunity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Windsor was represented by the public defender's office on a worthless check charge. An assistant public defender advised him to plead guilty …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a dismissal of appellant’s complaint with prejudice on the grounds that the doctrine of judicial immunity precludes bringing a malpractice suit against the public defender’s office. We reverse and certify the question.
In his complaint, appellant alleged that the public defender’s office represented him in the defense of a worthless check charge. On the advice of an assistant public defender, appellant pled guilty to the charge in return for the state’s recommendation that he be sentenced to a probationary period. The trial judge agreed to the bargain. Six months later, appellant appeared for sentencing represented by .another member of the public defender’s office. This assistant made no mention of the previously accepted plea bargain, and as a result, appellant was sentenced to two years in prison. Fortunately, appellant was able to obtain new counsel who secured his release after eighty-six days of incarceration. Thereafter, appellant filed his complaint, the dismissal of which prompts this appeal.
Appellee has provided us with no reason the public defender should not be required to respond to appellant’s complaint and our own research has revealed none. Those courts which have considered the question of public defender’s liability for malpractice have held there is no immunity.1 We agree.
Considerations which require that a judge and prosecutor be immune from liability for the exercise of duties essential to the administration of justice, do not require that the same immunity be extended to the public defender. While the prosecutor is an officer of the state whose duty it is to see that impartial justice is done, the public defender is an advocate, who once appointed owes a duty only to his client, the indigent defendant. His role does not differ from that of privately retained counsel.2
Because we recognize the serious impact our holding today may have on Florida’s public defender system,3 we certify the following question to be of great public importance: 4
Does the doctrine of judicial immunity preclude the bringing of a suit against the office of the public defender by a former client for malpractice committed by the public defender or one of his assistants in the course of representing the former client on criminal charges?
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LARRY G. SMITH, SHAW and JOA-NOS, JJ., concur. . Reese v. Danforth, 486 Pa. 479, 406 A. 2d 735, 6 ALR 4th 758 (1979); Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn. 563, 362 A. 2d 871 (1975). Similarly, appointed counsel in federal criminal prosecutions have been held not immune under federal law, Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 62 L.Ed.2d 355, 100 S.Ct. 402 (1979), or state law, Donigan v. Finn, 95 Mich.App. 28, 290 N.W. 2d 80 (1980).
. Reese v. Danforth, 486 Pa. n. 1, 406 A. 2d 735. See also, Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. at 204, 100 S.Ct. at 409; Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509, 516.
. 1980 figures show that Florida is third among the states in total costs of indigent defense services, behind only California and New York, and sixth in per capita expenditures. Lefstein, Criminal Defense Services For The Poor (May 1982).
. Fla. Const. art. V, section 3(b)(5).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schreiber v. Rowe, 814 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2002)…impinge upon the independence of these offices.” Id. The petitioners assert that public defenders should also be labeled quasi-judicial officers, as their duties are sufficiently analogous to those of state attorneys. However, in Windsor v. Gibson, 424 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the First District Court of Appeal held that public defenders were not entitled to judicial immunity: Considerations which require that a judge and prosecutor be immune from liability for the exercise of duties essential to the…
-
Wilcox v. Bennett H. Brummer, 739 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…Wilcox, appeals from a final order granting the Public Defender’s motion to dismiss. We reverse. [*1283] The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by dismissing her complaint based on quasi-judicial immunity. We agree. In Windsor v. Gibson, 424 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the First District held that the doctrine of judicial immunity does not preclude bringing a malpractice suit against the public defender’s office. The court explained: Considerations which require that a judge and prosecutor be…
-
S.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 825 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…her appointed counsel was ineffective. We hold that, although she has the right to appointed counsel, she has no right to collaterally challenge her counsel’s performance other than the filing of a malpractice action. See [*1059] Windsor v. Gibson, 424 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(noting that public defender, unlike state attorney, is an advocate and, just like private attorney, owes a duty to indigent client). Our holding conflicts with that of the First District’s in L.W. v. Dep’t of Children and F…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1981)
- Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1979)