In the Matter of Robert M.A. Nadeau
168 A.3d 746
Me.2017Background
- Robert M.A. Nadeau served multiple terms as York County Probate Judge; conduct at issue occurred after his 2012 election and before he left office Jan. 1, 2017.
- The Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability filed two reports: Jud-16-1 (five-count report alleging misconduct while judge-elect/sitting judge) and Jud-17-1 (one-count report alleging campaign solicitation via his law-firm website).
- A Hearing Justice held a de novo evidentiary hearing for Jud-16-1, made detailed factual findings; the Court adopted those findings and reviewed violations de novo. Nadeau waived a hearing on Jud-17-1.
- Proven misconduct included: directing the Register of Probate not to appoint seven attorneys (do-not-appoint directive), removing an appointed attorney from pending cases, ordering an attorney to destroy a lawfully obtained public document, urging litigants to contact county officials (which would benefit his compensation), and personally soliciting campaign contributions through his firm website.
- The Court found violations of the 1993 Code (Canons 2(A), 2(B), 3(C)(4)) as to counts in Jud-16-1 and violation of Rule 4.2(C)(1) (2015 Code) in Jud-17-1.
- Sanction: $5,000 forfeiture and two-year suspension from the practice of law (starting Aug. 1, 2017), with Bar Rule 31 compliance; Court emphasized prior disciplinary history and pattern of intemperate conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Committee's Argument | Nadeau's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do-not-appoint directive (excluding seven attorneys from court-appointed list) | Directive was motivated by personal animus toward former colleagues and violated Canons 2(B) and 3(C)(4) by using relationships to influence appointments | Argued budget/recusal concerns justified limiting appointments to avoid added court expense and recusals | Violation: directive reflected substantial ill will and was not impartial; breached Canons 2(B) and 3(C)(4) |
| Removal of Attorney Ramirez from pending cases | Removal was motivated by animosity toward an associated attorney and violated Canons 2(A) and 2(B) undermining public confidence | Asserted budgetary reasons and court administration concerns | Violation: action partly motivated by animosity and undermined impartiality and public confidence; breached Canons 2(A) and 2(B) |
| Order to destroy a lawfully obtained public document (in a case from which he had recused) | Ordering destruction of a public record was unlawful and violated Canon 2(A) | Hearing Justice originally found no Code violation based on panel finding against Holmes; Nadeau did not dispute order | Violation: court holds order to destroy lawfully obtained public document (while recused) violated Canon 2(A) |
| Abrupt overhaul of Probate Court schedule after commissioners rejected his pay/time request (Count 4) | Committee: changes motivated by spite to advance judge’s private interest; violated Canons 1, 2(A), 2(B), 3(B)(8) | Nadeau: acted to address legitimate court needs and improve efficiency; administrative authority justified changes | No violation: although actions were impetuous and motivated in part by anger, final schedule improved court functioning and administrative changes alone did not breach the Code |
| Urging litigants to contact county officials and soliciting campaign donations via law-firm website (Counts 5 and Jud-17-1) | Urging litigants in active cases to lobby for more court time improperly lent judicial prestige to advance his private interest (pay tied to court days); website solicitation personally solicited campaign funds in violation of Rule 4.2(C)(1) | Argued advocacy for court funding is permissible and website solicitation was not a direct personal solicitation and produced no donations; invoked First Amendment protection | Violations: urging litigants to lobby in pending matters violated Canon 2(B); personal solicitation via firm website violated Rule 4.2(C)(1) regardless of success; Williams-Yulee supports enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nadeau, 2016 ME 116, 144 A.3d 1161 (Maine 2016) (prior Nadeau disciplinary opinion; adopted Hearing Justice findings and framed de novo review)
- In re Nadeau, 2007 ME 21, 914 A.2d 714 (Maine 2007) (explains Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction over judicial discipline)
- In re Nadeau, 2007 ME 35, 916 A.2d 200 (Maine 2007) (prior disciplinary sanctions imposed on Nadeau)
- In re Cox, 658 A.2d 1056 (Me. 1995) (holding sanctions for judicial misconduct remain appropriate after judge leaves office)
- Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (U.S. 2015) (upheld prohibition on personal solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates as narrowly tailored to a compelling interest)