This matter invokes the Supreme Judicial Court’s original jurisdiction over judicial disciplinary matters. The Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability, by its report dated May 22, 1987, alleges that District Court Judge David M. Cox violated Canons 1, 2(A), 2(B) and 3(A)(3) of the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct and that those violations warrant formal disciplinary action. By stipulation of the parties, this case has been submitted on the pleаdings before this court and the pleadings and record before the Committee. 1
I.
On the morning of May 1, 1986, Judge Cox was in his chambers in the District Court in Bangor with an attorney representing Judge Cox’s son, who had been аrrested for speeding on a motorcycle in Brewer two nights earlier. During the course of their conversation regarding the
Judge Cox also made statements expressing his concern about his ability to remain impartial in processing arraignments involving the Brewer Police Department scheduled later that morning. After compоsing himself, Judge Cox did hear those arraignments and also participated in a scheduling conference with Captain Shu-man, who felt that the judge treated him in a regular and professional way in those matters. Captain Shuman, who has been a personal friend of Judge Cox for more than twenty years, was still concerned about the nature of the original conversation and, after finishing his court businеss, went to the District Attorney and requested that that office monitor Judge Cox’s conduct in future Brewer police department cases. There has not, in fact, been any indication of discriminatоry treatment of Brewer cases by Judge Cox nor was there any evidence that he ever attempted to influence the proceedings or the outcome in his son’s case, which was processed before a different judge of the District Court.
Everyone who was present during the conversation stated that Judge Cox was greatly concerned about his open-heart surgery that was sсheduled to occur within a few days after the May 1 conversation, and that he was disturbed by his son’s conduct. Upon returning to work in late June, after the surgery and before the incident in question becamе widely known, Judge Cox, on his own initiative, invited Captain Shu-man into his chambers and apologized to him for the May 1 incident. Captain Shu-man has characterized these comments as “a humble apolоgy.”
II.
“The Code of Judicial Conduct establishes minimum standards of conduct that must be observed by judges in order to preserve and maintain the independence and integrity of this State’s judiciary.”
Matter of Benoit,
Judge Cox’s conversation presents more than an appearance of impropriеty. It also constitutes a specific violation of Canon 2(B) which states in its first phrase: “A judge should not allow his family ... relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment.” We cannot merely dismiss the unfortunаte conversation in Judge Cox’s chambers as a private discussion between two old friends in which the judge lost his temper. Since Judge Cox’s loud berating of Captain Shuman could be heard by others, the сonversation was not private in the strict sense of the word. Nevertheless, whether the conversation was public or private is immaterial. Canon 1 requires a judge to observe “high standards of сonduct.” Canon 2(A) requires him to “conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” (emphasis added). Canon 2 states in full that “A judge should avoid impropriеty and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities.” (emphasis added). The Code’s standard of conduct therefore applies to any incident or conversation, public or privаte, that could constitute or create the appearance of impropriety.
In this instance, Judge Cox allowed his anger over the procedure employed in the arrest оf a family member to influence his conduct as a judge. His conversation with Captain Shuman took place during working hours when both individuals were at court in their official capacities, and the judge’s anger over his son’s arrest was the sole reason he initiated the meeting with Captain Shuman in his chambers. Although family relationships did inappropriately influence Judge Cox’s judicial conduct, we underscore the fact that there is absolutely no indication that he ever allowed it to influence his impartial handling of any case concerning the Brewer Police Department, or thаt he was in any way involved in the proceedings or the outcome in the case against his son.
Canon 3(A)(3) states in part: “A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and оthers with whom he deals in his official capacity_” It is clear that in his remarks Judge Cox was impatient, undignified, and discourteous to Captain Shuman and the police department he represented. Although this Court has recognized that “judges are merely human” and that “[ijntemperate language is on occasion understandable, but... abusive language is inexcusable.”
Matter of Ross,
III.
Because the inherent nature of the incident, which dealt with a judge’s own personal and family interests, strikes at the heart of the public’s perception of judicial impartiality, these violations of the Code mandate formal disciplinary action.
It is ADJUDGED that Judge David M. Cox has violated Canons 1, 2(A), 2(B) and 3(A)(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
It is ORDERED that he be, and he hereby is, reprimanded for those violations.
= KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
Notes
. The procedure followed in judicial disciplinary proceedings is set forth in
Matter of Ross,
. These Canons provide as follows:
Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.
Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All His Aсtivities
A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. A judge should not allow his family, social, or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment. He should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him. He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform thе Duties of Eds Office Impartially and Diligently
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all his other activities. His judicial duties include all the duties of his office prescribed by law. In the рerformance of these duties, the following standards apply:
A. Adjudicative Responsibilities.
[[Image here]]
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deals in his official capacity ...