Former Florida chief justice blasts Bondi

Barbara Pariente of West Palm Beach calls U.S. attorney general an embarrassment.

Pam Bondi’s conduct during a recent congressional hearing about the Jeffrey Epstein files was an embarrassment to attorneys, a former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court said.

Barbara Pariente of West Palm Beach, the second woman appointed to the state’s highest court, castigated the U.S. attorney general.

“As a lawyer and woman, I was embarrassed by her conduct,” Pariente told Stet News after she spoke to the Palm Beach County League of Women Voters on Feb. 18 about “Defending Democracy in the Courts.”

Several survivors of Epstein’s crimes attended the Washington, D.C., hearing regarding how the Justice Department handled the redactions and releases of the Epstein files. 

When asked by U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., to apologize for not redacting names of victims who had never gone public and posting nude photographs online, Bondi refused to acknowledge the women. 

“She should be ashamed of that,” Pariente said.

But Bondi said in her opening statement that federal officials had been diligent about redacting victim names.

“More than 500 attorneys and reviewers spent thousands of hours, painstakingly reviewing millions of pages to comply with Congress’ law. 

“We’ve released more than 3 million pages, including 180,000 images, all to the public, while doing our very best in the time frame allotted by the legislation, to protect victims.

“And if you brought us a victim’s name that was inadvertently released, we immediately redacted it.”

Bondi is a practicing attorney in Florida in good standing. 

Last year, Pariente added her name to a bar complaint about Bondi, but it failed. Pariente retired in 2019.

Nonetheless, Pariente, who was serving on the state Supreme Court and wasn’t working in Palm Beach County at the time of the first prosecution of Epstein, said the justice system here “did not serve the victims well.”

Epstein prosecution began in Palm Beach County

The first criminal case against Epstein occurred in Palm Beach County in 2006 under then-State Attorney Barry Krischer. He took the case to a grand jury, which indicted Epstein on one count of solicitation of prostitution. 

Two victims, who were underage when Epstein abused them at his Palm Beach mansion, were vilified in that secret setting by Krischer’s deputy. The prosecutor in charge of the crimes against children unit at the State Attorney’s Office called both of her own witnesses prostitutes in front of jurors, who then scolded the two.

Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, saying he was concerned about the course of Krischer’s prosecution, turned over his case to the FBI. Despite finding as many as 80 victims, federal prosecutors and Krischer negotiated a deal with Epstein in which he pleaded guilty to two felonies including an additional charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution. 

He served 13 months in jail during which he left 12 hours a day/six days a week on work release.

Bondi, 60, worked as an assistant state attorney in Hillsborough County during that time. She was elected the state’s first female attorney general in 2011 and held that office until 2019. She then represented President Donald Trump during his first impeachment.

Previous bar complaint fails

Pariente, 77, signed the bar complaint with about 70 other liberal-learning colleagues in May 2025, alleging that Bondi acted unethically by threatening federal prosecutors with losing their jobs if they did not “zealously pursue the President’s political objectives.”

The bar is the governing organization of all practicing attorneys in Florida. When a complaint is filed, that organization investigates, and if it finds probable cause, the Florida Supreme Court disciplines the attorney. 

Pariente’s willingness to speak out is no longer considered unusual.

“Things have changed with judges and ex-judges speaking out on political topics,” said Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University. “This began with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas, who really took judicial comment in a direction that had not been seen before.”

The complaint cited three cases:

• The prosecutor who argued the case to deport Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was fired. Garcia was sent to a Salvadoran prison last March because of an “administrative error” despite an immigration judge’s order that he not be removed from the United States. Garcia was brought back to the U.S. and now faces a federal human trafficking charge related to a 2-year-old traffic stop. Erez Reuveni said he was pressured by DOJ officials to misrepresent the facts in court.

• Denise Cheung, head of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia, said she resigned after being pressured to take a case without “sufficient evidence” into whether an executive agency had illegally awarded a contract under the Biden administration.

• Federal prosecutors in New York and D.C. resigned rather than drop charges against then-New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The complaint alleged Bondi approved a “quid pro quo” arrangement to drop public corruption charges against Adams in exchange for Adams supporting Trump’s plan to arrest and deport illegal immigrants from the city, the complaint says.

Bondi took a “legally dubious” position that the court was not empowered to question the president’s order, the complaint said. In addition, Bondi labeled federal judges as “deranged,” violating the bar rule of not engaging in “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

The bar said it would not investigate because its rules prevent the organization from looking into federal officeholders. 

The Florida Supreme Court declined to order it, saying the signers did not have standing to bring the complaint because they weren’t parties to any of those cases.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeir’s office filed a friend of the court brief that called the complaint against Bondi “partisan lawfare.”

Pariente doesn’t back away from a challenge

Pariente was known at the Supreme Court as the “petite powerhouse.” 

Though a breast cancer diagnosis in 2003 threw her back on her heels, she decided to attack it head on — and inspire other women in the process.

Pariente talked to no fewer than 15 doctors, a story on the Supreme Court website says, then decided on an aggressive form of treatment. She had a double mastectomy, reconstruction and chemotherapy. 

When she appeared on the bench for a high-profile citrus canker case, her head was bald. She said she did it as “an affirmation of life — to do what is necessary to ensure good health.”

‘Greatest threat for democracy’

Still she worries about the health of the U.S. democracy. 

The fair administration of justice was one of the major points of Pariente’s talk: the rule of law and how she believes the Trump administration is undermining it.

The rule of law refers to a key pillar of democracy in which all people, institutions and entities are accountable for following fair laws that are equally enforced. Even public officials are not shielded from punishment.

“I address you today on what I see as the greatest threat for democracy, perhaps in our lifetime, real threats from those in power at the highest level to undermine the rule of law,” Pariente said. “That’s because the lines of power for each of the three branches of government are no longer distinguished from one another the way they used to be,” thus weakening checks and balances on power.

Trump “thinks that the legislative branch is part of his branch.” As for the judiciary, he threatened law firms at the beginning of his administration. Lawyers uphold the rule of law, she said. They provide access to justice and make sure laws are equally enforced for their clients.

Many lawyers ‘took the coward’s way out’

Trump told several law firms that if they did not accede to his interests, he would bar them from doing business with the government.

“I mean, that is extreme,” she said. “Unfortunately, many took the coward’s way out and complied.”

She went on to point out that the administration is slapping the pejorative label on “liberal, activist” judges. The New York Times, in a January analysis, found appeals court judges had ruled in favor of the administration 133 to 12. 

Judges rule on the case before them, the facts of that case and the law that applies to it, Pariente said.

On Bush v. Gore

“I know what it is like to be attacked by politicians,” recalling a landmark case that came before her and her colleagues on the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 — Bush v. Gore. That case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ended a recount ordered by Pariente’s court and awarding Florida’s electoral votes to Bush. 

Pariente said she thinks “about the fact that Gore, as a gentleman, conceded and we had a peaceful transition of power, much to many people’s dismay.”

Effects of the SAVE Act

Back to the present day, she expressed worry about the SAVE Act, which in her view restricts citizens from voting. For example, she says the provision that would require women’s married names to match the names on their birth certificates could bar them from registering to vote. The legislation awaits a vote in the Senate.

And finally, Pariente warned about what she labels “the descent into authoritarianism” in this administration.

“The first step can be subtle,” she said. “So how can the average citizen stand up when they’re just figuring out how to afford health care, pay for groceries, send your children to school, and hold a job?

“But, as we saw in Minneapolis, many average brave citizens did stand up and they ought to be congratulated.

“And hopefully the same should be done in other communities.”