A Florida Supreme Court order favors Fort Myers attorney Christopher "Chris" W. Crowley in a case involving freedom of speech in a political campaign in which Crowley challenged State Attorney Amira Fox for that office.

The case dragged through the Florida Bar disciplinary process since 2020 and involved the recusal of several judges during that time.

The Florida Bar's complaint was that Crowley, a candidate during the 2018 political campaign for state attorney of the 20th Judicial Circuit, "publicly disparaged his opponent through various political campaign materials, advertisements, and social media postings" among other rules violations.

Crowley's opponent in that race was Fox. She won that race and is the current state attorney for the 20th Judicial District headquartered in Fort Myers.

The Supreme Court published its opinion Thursday, July 9, on the Florida Bar web site, saying it agreed with Crowley and holding that disciplining him for his campaign statements would violate his First Amendment rights. The court emphasized that political speech, especially during campaigns, is deserving of the highest level of First Amendment protection.

The Supreme Court's ruling language said:

"The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar restrict what lawyers may say about certain candidates running for elected office, including those in nonpartisan judicial races and those seeking partisan positions. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.2. The Florida Bar alleged that Christopher W. Crowley violated this rule when he criticized a fellow candidate vying for the position of state attorney. Agreeing with the Bar’s position, the referee recommends that we find Crowley’s speech to be in violation of the rule and suspend him from the practice of law for sixty days. Crowley challenges those recommendations, arguing that his speech is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We agree with Crowley and hold that under existing United States Supreme Court precedent the application of rule 4-8.2(a) to the particular speech at issue in this case is unconstitutional."

Rule 4-8.2(a) says: "A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, mediator, arbitrator, adjudicatory officer, public legal officer, juror or member of the venire, or candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office."

The Court found the application of Rule 4-8.2(a) and a similar rule — Misconduct and Minor Misconduct, 3-4.3 — unconstitutional as applied to Crowley’s campaign speech and rejected a recommended suspension.

Crowley was satisfied with the ruling.

"This is a great victory for freedom, liberty and the First Amendment," he said. "Special thanks to the Rutherford Institute, Jesus Christ and the writers of the U.S. Constitution."

The Rutherford Institute, a conservative Christian public interest law firm focusing on defense of civil liberties, human rights, and religious liberties, aided in Crowley's defense.

The institute said it would "come to the defense of a decorated Gulf War veteran who, after fighting for freedom abroad, was punished for exercising his right to political free speech in his home state of Florida."

Crowley’s legal representative, Attorney Scott Tozian, said the case has been a years long ordeal for Crowley who insisted from the outset that his speech was protected by the 1st Amendment.

“We are gratified that the Florida Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to 1st Amendment protection,” Tozian said.

Fox did not respond to a WGCU Public Media request for comment.

At issue were comments Crowley made in 2017 during the campaign for the state attorney's office.

Then Chief Assistant State Attorney Fox was also a candidate.

The Court's ruling said that: "During the course of the campaign, Crowley made numerous remarks about Fox’s qualifications and integrity that the Bar alleges are in violation of its rules. For example, Crowley claimed that Fox had a low conviction rate and attributed to Fox the failure of the State Attorney’s Office to obtain convictions in two cases. He also accused Fox of improperly interfering with a grand jury."

Other comments by Crowley alleged that Fox was involved in the decision to arrest him for campaign-related misconduct.

Leading up to the election, Crowley was arrested after being charged with two felonies relating to improper conduct at a campaign event. In response, Crowley accused Fox of orchestrating his arrest, the complaint said. He reiterated these allegations numerous times.

Crowley also accused Fox of having ties to a pro-Palestinian organization.

Court records said one example of Crowley's disparaging commentary included a radio ad he approved declaring his opponent “corrupt” and “swampy,” among other things. The complaint claimed Crowley, on more than one occasion, made an issue of his opponent’s religious beliefs.

Crowley didn't deny making the allegations in question or dispute that the statements were directed at Fox’s qualifications or integrity.

The Florida Bar filed the complaint when it was made aware of the comments.

The case has been brewing for more than five years, interrupted at length at one point by Crowley being recalled to active duty by the U.S. Army. He had been a member of the U.S. Army Reserve.

The Florida bar filed the complaint in April 2020 and the case has seen four judges acting as referees disqualified. A fifth judge — Gilbert Alexander Smith, Jr. — ultimately presided.

The original referee,12th Circuit Judge Maria Ruhl, ruled for the bar, recommending Crowley be found guilty and that a sanctions hearing be set to determine discipline.

However, Ruhl and three other subsequent presiding judges assigned as referees — Melissa Gould, Erika Quartermaine and Thomas Krug — stepped down after motions for disqualification were filed due to conflicts of interest. Three of the four bowed out within three months in spring 2021.

At issue for the recusals was the use of Fox's political campaign treasurer Eric Robinson of Sarasota by the judges.

The case was being heard via The Florida Bar’s Division of Lawyer Regulation — an official arm of the Florida Supreme Court — which provides a means to address lawyer misconduct. The division accepts complaints against lawyers, investigates those complaints, and prosecutes lawyers who engage in unethical conduct.

Disciplinary proceedings do not take place before the Supreme Court although the Supreme Court’s docket does include the case and filings in it.

WGCU is your trusted source for news and information in Southwest Florida. We are a nonprofit public service, and your support is more critical than ever. Keep public media strong and donate now. Thank you.