Opinion ID: 2718842
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Maine Code of Judicial Conduct

Text: [¶31] The trusts contend that Justice Cole violated the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct by not disqualifying himself pursuant to Canon 3(E)(1)-(2) or disclosing his alleged relationship with former Justice Crowley pursuant to Canon 3(E)(3). We address the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct’s requirements for recusal and disclosure in turn. [¶32] Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(E) establishes two instances where a judge’s recusal or disqualification from a case is warranted. First, “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself on the judge’s own initiative in any proceeding in which the judge has reason to believe that he or she could not act with complete impartiality.” M. Code Jud. Conduct 3(E)(1). “This is a purely subjective test which the judge should apply based on his or her own understanding of personal feelings or attitudes or factual matters involved in the proceeding.” Advisory Comm.’s Notes to the M. Code Jud. Conduct at 34 (effective Sept. 1, 1993) (hereinafter, “Advisory Notes”). “A judge acting under this subsection . . . need not state the grounds of disqualification.” M. Code Jud. Conduct 3(E)(1). 22 [¶33] Second, “[a] judge may disqualify himself or herself on the judge’s own initiative without stating the grounds of disqualification, and shall disqualify himself or herself on a motion for recusal made by a party, in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” M. Code Jud. Conduct 3(E)(2). Canon 3(E)(2) establishes an objective test that asks, “[r]egardless of the judge’s own belief about his or her ability to act impartially, [whether] the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by others.” Advisory Notes at 34-35. Canon 3(E)(2) also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of examples of when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, such as when “the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer.” M. Code Jud. Conduct 3(E)(2)(a). [¶34] Independent of these principles governing judicial recusal is the requirement of disclosure set out in Canon 3(E)(3), which provides as follows: Unless a judge disqualifies himself or herself under subsections (1) or (2) of this section, a judge shall promptly disclose to the parties in any proceeding any fact known to the judge that is relevant to the question of impartiality and that the judge knows or reasonably ought to know could connect the judge . . . to any of the parties, counsel, witnesses, or issues in the proceeding. The Advisory Notes explain the purpose of this disclosure requirement and the analysis to be employed: The purpose of the provision is to assure that parties trying to determine whether to seek recusal are aware of relevant information in 23 more specific detail than is provided in the general judicial financial disclosures required under Canon 6. The relevance standard for disclosure is lower than that for disqualification or recusal. The test of relevance is that of M.R. Ev. 401: A fact that must be disclosed is one “having any tendency” to make the fact of impartiality “more probable or less probable than it would be without the” fact. Advisory Notes at 38. [¶35] Applying these Canons of the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct to the present case requires an understanding of the practice of law in Maine, where the legal and judicial communities are small.7 It is unavoidable, and indeed desirable, that judges who serve on the bench together will necessarily develop close professional relationships. We do not expect that such cordial relationships will end if a judge leaves the bench and returns to the practice of law. We are cognizant that the party status of the law firm in this instance makes this case somewhat different from those where a former colleague is simply an advocate for a party before the court. However, it remains a “fact of litigation in small Maine communities that a judge, or members of his or her family, may know of a party, or a witness, or someone related to a party or a witness, or may even have done 7 At oral argument, counsel expressed surprise that judges will often have lunch together. To be clear, the entire Maine judiciary is comprised of only sixty active state court judges. Those judges are encouraged to maintain collegial relationships through the organization of regular lunches, collegial support, mentoring, and judicial education. The bar is similarly small, with only approximately 3800 active in-state lawyers. Registration Statistics, Me. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, https://www1.maine.gov/cgi-bin/online/maine_bar/statistics.pl. Collegiality is encouraged among the bar and between judges and lawyers, and bench/bar events, designed to encourage collegiality among lawyers and judges, are held regularly throughout the year. These events include lunches, dinners, golf tournaments, and hockey games. 24 business with somebody whose name may come up in a case.” Charette v. Charette, 2013 ME 4, ¶ 24, 60 A.3d 1264 (quotation marks omitted). [¶36] Other state courts have reached similar conclusions: “We note that in many areas, particularly rural areas, where judges have known practically all the people for many years, if such were a disqualification, the judge could never preside on most cases.” Medley v. State, 600 So. 2d 957, 961 (Miss. 1992). “Unless a judge in a small community was a hermit or a newcomer to the region (neither of which is a good foundation for the position) before assuming the bench, the judge will necessarily have had relationships—business or personal—with most of the attorneys in the community. That is not necessarily a bad thing.” Tatham v. Rogers, 283 P.3d 583, 603 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (Korsmo, C.J., dissenting). [¶37] With these concepts in mind, we conclude that there was no obvious error in Justice Cole failing to sua sponte recuse himself or disclose his purported friendship with Crowley. First, with respect to recusal, there was no obvious error in Justice Cole’s decision not to disqualify himself from the case pursuant to Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(E)(1). Canon 3(E)(1) espouses a purely subjective standard for recusal. Advisory Notes at 34. Because there is no record of Justice Cole’s state of mind on the matter, we lack the necessary record to review his decision not to disqualify himself pursuant to Canon 3(E)(1). 25 [¶38] That Justice Cole did not disqualify himself pursuant to Canon 3(E)(2) was also not obvious error, because the trusts have not put forth any competent evidence that establishes that Justice Cole’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned by others.”8 Advisory Notes at 35. “The mere belief that a judge might not be completely impartial is insufficient to warrant recusal.” State v. Atwood, 2010 ME 12, ¶ 21, 988 A.2d 981 (quotation marks omitted). Even assuming arguendo that the trusts’ representations to this Court are credible—i.e., that Justice Cole maintains a friendly relationship with Crowley, who is now employed of counsel at KRZ—“[t]here are many levels or degrees of friendship in our society. Thus, when a question arises as to whether a judge’s acquaintance or friendship with a particular person requires the judge’s disqualification, the answer must ultimately turn on the specific facts of the case—in particular, the precise nature of the judge’s relationship with that person, and the way in which that person is connected to the litigation.” Phillips v. State, 271 P.3d 457, 469–70 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012); see also Jacobson v. Manfredi, 679 P.2d 251, 254 (Nev. 1984) (“[A] judge, especially a judge in a small town, need not disqualify himself merely because he knows one of the parties.”). 8 Because the trusts did not move for recusal, Justice Cole’s duty to recuse himself pursuant to Canon 3(E)(2) was discretionary rather than mandatory. 26 [¶39] To be clear, there is no allegation on the record that Justice Cole and Crowley are family members, that they have any financial entanglements, or that they have any significant relationship other than a friendship born of long careers on the bench. In support of his argument, counsel alleged orally, without factual support in the record, that Justice Cole and Crowley frequently had lunch together and engaged in other social events such as bar meetings, golfing, etc. However, a friendship between colleagues or former colleagues that includes such interactions does not provide a basis for requiring recusal. On the limited record before us, which contains no details regarding the relationship between Justice Cole and Crowley, we conclude that there was no obvious error in Justice Cole not recusing himself from a case in which one of the parties employs an attorney who is a former colleague and who did not appear in the present matter. [¶40] Finally, that Justice Cole did not make the type of disclosure required by Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(E)(3) likewise did not constitute obvious error. Canon 3(E)(3)’s requirement that judges disclose any information that is relevant to the issue of impartiality is a rule of reason. There can be little question that former judicial colleagues may be understood to be friends. Requiring disclosure of such a fact when that fact alone will not lead to recusal serves no practical purpose. Based on the limited record before us, there is simply no competent evidence requiring Justice Cole to make disclosures pursuant to 27 Canon 3(E)(3). Even assuming that some form of friendship exists between Justice Cole and Crowley, that fact is not so relevant to the question of impartiality that Justice Cole’s failure to disclose it deprived the trusts of a fair trial and resulted in a substantial injustice. See In re William S., 2000 ME 34, ¶ 8, 745 A.2d 991; Hathcock v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 912 So. 2d 844, 852-53 (Miss. 2005) (interpreting a similar disclosure requirement and concluding that the judge’s failure to disclose was harmless because there was no real basis for disqualification); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 882 F.2d 1556, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (finding no error in the trial judge’s failure to disclose that his son was an employee of one of the parties to the case). [¶41] For these reasons, we conclude that the trusts’ contentions regarding judicial bias are without merit.