Court bars sanctions against probate judge

PORTLAND — A dispute between Sagadahoc County Probate Judge Ronald A. Hart and a Portland lawyer may have led to some discourteous behavior by the judge, but the problem did not warrant any sanctions, the state’s highest court ruled Friday.

The Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability said that Hart should be punished over his actions during his battle with attorney Rita Farry two years ago, but the Maine Supreme Judicial Court refused to go along with the recommendation.

The dispute occurred when Hart believed that Farry had made misrepresentations to Androscoggin County Probate Judge Laurier T. Raymond in an effort to speed up a Bath estate case. Farry contacted Hart and said she would be filing a motion for an interim trustee to be appointed, and she asked the judge whether he would withdraw from the case because he had done so in a related proceeding several years earlier.

Hart told Farry he would not do so unless there were a good reason.

Farry is then said to have contacted Raymond and told him she thought Hart had a conflict in the case and would be stepping down. Raymond told her if that happened, he would try to set up a prompt hearing.

Hart and Raymond then discussed what had happened, and Hart appointed trustees in the estate case. He then phoned Farry and said he wanted her to explain her actions.

“Ms. Farry, I’d like you to appear before me on Sept. 6 at 8:30 a.m. in the morning to tell me why you lied to Judge Raymond,” Hart said.

Farry appeared before Hart, who characterized her conduct as the most “contemptuous, contumacious, insubordinate, obstructionist and egregious as I have ever seen in the 20 years I have been here.”

The committee that recommended sanctions against Hart said he overstepped his bounds and was unfair, undignified and discourteous, but the law court was not willing to impose sanctions.

“While the procedure employed by Judge Hart at the Sept. 6 hearing may have resulted in discourtesy or unfairness, we hold that it does not rise to the level of seriousness contemplated by the rules governing judicial misconduct,” the court said.