In the Matter of Robert M.A. Nadeau
144 A.3d 1161
Me.2016Background
- Robert M.A. Nadeau, York County Probate Judge (part-time; maintains private law practice), was the subject of a five-count disciplinary report by the Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability arising from: a letter he sent as an unrepresented litigant in a protection-from-harassment case, and internet/social-media materials created during/after his 2012 judicial campaign.
- A de novo evidentiary hearing was held before a designated Hearing Justice; the Hearing Justice found four of five alleged violations established; the Committee filed further submissions on sanctions.
- The contested conduct included: (1) a letter to opposing counsel that invoked Nadeau’s judicial office and warned litigation would be “very bad” for counsel and firm (and demanded an explanation about an email calling Nadeau “his eminence”); (2) a private disparaging remark about a District Court judge in that same letter; (3) a judicial website that linked to his private-law practice; and (4) a Facebook page described as the “official” page of the Probate Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court (de novo) concluded Nadeau violated Canon 1 and Canon 2(B) of the 1993 Maine Code of Judicial Conduct by using his judicial office to advance personal interests and by diminishing judicial integrity via the letter to counsel (Count 3).
- The Court declined to find violations for the private criticism of another judge (Count 4), the website link to his private practice (Count 1), and the Facebook-page labeling (Count 2), applying the text and Advisory Notes of the Canons and considering context.
- Sanctions: public censure and reprimand; thirty-day suspension from judicial duties (no portion probated); Court considered prior disciplinary history and Nadeau’s refusal to accept wrongdoing in imposing sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Committee's Argument | Nadeau's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether letter to opposing counsel violated Canon 1 / Canon 2(B) by exploiting judicial office to advance personal interests | Letter invoked judicial prestige to coerce settlement and threatened harm to counsel/firm; violated Canons | First Amendment protects his speech; conduct did not implicate judicial role | Held: Violation of Canons 1 and 2(B); Canons withstand strict‑scrutiny framework; not overbroad/applicable here |
| Whether private criticism of another judge in the same letter violated the Code (Canon 1, 2(A), 4(A)(2)) | Such criticism undermines public confidence and demeans office | Statement was nonpublic, about a proceeding in which he was a litigant; Canon 3(B)(9) excludes such statements | Held: No violation—nonpublic comment about a case where judge was a litigant falls outside prohibition; Advisory Notes permit such comment |
| Whether linking a judicial website to his private-law practice violated Canon 2(B) (lending prestige for private gain) | The link created an electronic pathway from judicial platform to personal business, implying improper use of office | Link was intended to avoid public confusion, generated no business, and was promptly removed upon complaint | Held: No formal finding of violation under unique circumstances; cautionary guidance issued |
| Whether labeling a campaign/Facebook page as the “official” probate page violated Canon 2(A) / 4(A)(2) | Mislabeling risked eroding public confidence and demeaned the office | Content and labeling did not injure the Court’s integrity; conduct not proven to be irresponsible/improper under Code | Held: Committee failed to prove violation; not shown to compromise public confidence or cause injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (2015) (judicial-candidate speech restriction upheld under strict scrutiny to protect public confidence in judiciary)
- In re Nadeau, 914 A.2d 714 (Me. 2007) (prior disciplinary proceeding involving same judge; standards for Committee’s burden and discipline)
- In re Ross, 428 A.2d 858 (Me. 1981) (procedures and purposes of judicial discipline; sanctions goals)
- In re Cox, 658 A.2d 1056 (Me. 1995) (application of judicial code to extra-judicial conduct)