It’s not unusual for parties in court proceedings to be disappointed by the results they get from the legal system. Those pronounced criminals complain their defenders failed to skillfully present their case. And in civil cases, the party on the losing end may say the judge rushed proceedings to clear their docket, leaving relevant issues unexplored.
In some cases, however, the reason for frustration runs deeper than the negligence of a single player. Chris Hanson experienced that type of frustration as a litigant in a family law case.
“I encountered severe attorney and judicial misconduct that points beyond incompetency and indicates the system has failed,” Hanson reports. “And the institutional failures I’ve experienced not only impact my case but also foster corruption within Florida’s judicial system that has clearly reached an unprecedented and perilous degree.”
Hanson’s case is notable because he is an AV-rated Florida litigation lawyer with nearly 20 years of experience working with the court system. As a legal professional, he knew what he was seeing was a problem that was deeper than his individual case. And as he took steps to address the issues through the proper channels, he uncovered a pattern of abuse that compelled him to raise his voice on behalf of others who might experience the same type of injustice.
“I know it is dangerous to speak out against the most powerful lawyers and judges in the state of Florida,” Hanson says. “But I believe it is even more dangerous to remain silent as I see the damage this corruption is causing to my family and other families subject to the same behavior.”
He wasn’t searching for systemic failures
Activism aimed at identifying issues within the civil and criminal justice system in the US is widespread. Countless organizations, many with massive teams and extensive financial support, exist to uncover and make public problems within the legal system.
Hanson is not in the same camp as those activists. He wasn’t searching for systemic failures. Rather, they found him while he was trying to get his family through a very difficult time in a fair and efficient manner. Unfortunately, the Court system had other priorities.
“I took action because I saw how the court’s behavior was hurting my family,” Hanson says. “I submitted detailed complaints regarding the judge in my case and an attorney in an effort to protect my children from the obvious and severe corruption plaguing the case. The way in which those complaints were handled opened my eyes to the ugly truth that when misconduct implicates the powerful and well-connected, that misconduct somehow vanishes without a trace.”
Hanson has joined the fight against corruption not because he wanted to, but because he had no choice. As an experienced litigator, he knows what constitutes systemic corruption. When he saw it impacting his children, he couldn’t help but object.
“My fight against corruption in Florida courts is not driven by vengeance,” Hanson says. “I’m speaking out because of an unyielding affinity for truth, which is a principle that defines my life and my work.”
Should the court system be sentenced for contempt?
Courts operate under a system of rules designed to ensure everyone has access to justice. When those involved in legal proceedings flout those rules, there are consequences. Contempt of court is often the judgment pronounced on those who don’t comply with court rules or its judgments.
Hanson argues his experience reveals distinct signs that judges and attorneys are not operating by the rules and that the system for holding them accountable to the rules has broken down, leaving the guilty without consequences for contemptible behavior. He believes that what he has seen highlights a structural issue involving a lack of effective oversight of the very agencies charged with enforcing professional standards.
“I’m speaking out because my story involves much more than a single bad experience,” Hanson says. “It’s about repeated, verifiable procedural breakdowns across multiple agencies, involving missed investigations, unreviewed evidence, and cases closed without explanation.”
Hanson has filed complaints with the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) naming Judge Kelly Ayers and with the Florida Bar naming attorney Scott Paul Davis. He reports that the JQC dismissed his complaint without justification or explanation.
“Unfortunately, current Florida law entitles the JQC to operate completely in the dark, with all of Ayers’ misconduct simply disappearing with their inexplicable dismissal,” Hanson says. “Florida’s citizens deserve better than a system that protects the insider foxes engaging in such dishonest and harmful conduct over litigants seeking only truth and justice.”
The pleas for justice from private citizens in cases where they hold a stake are often dismissed as personal advocacy. When their pleading leads to a change in outcome, they are typically the only ones who benefit.
Hanson’s case is not one focused on personal advocacy. He is pushing for transparency, proper review of evidence, and adherence to established rules so that all can benefit. He knows that when the legal system fails, everyone loses, so he is demanding reforms that restore trust in institutions that affect thousands of families, litigants, and attorneys.
