What Happened In Nashville

A single justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found no basis to disturb a finding that a (now former) judge had engaged in “minor misconduct” warranting an admonition

The Board of Overseers of the Bar (the “Board”) seeks stiffer discipline against Charles F. Budd (“Budd”), a former District Court Judge against whom a panel of the Grievance Commission (the “Panel”) issued an admonition for misconduct that occurred while at a professional conference in 2022. As the predicate to its admonition, the Panel found that Budd’s misconduct was minor; caused only minimal harm; and is unlikely to be repeated.  On review, the case is less about Budd’s behavior before, during and after the conference than it is about the standard of review. A Single Justice can only set aside a Panel’s findings of fact if they are clearly erroneous. Here, there is competent evidence in the record to support the Panel’s findings of fact-even though a different panel or fact finder working with a clean slate could find the facts differently. Under the Maine Bar Rules, the Panel’s findings of fact, which are not clearly erroneous, limit the severity of permissible discipline to an admonition. Accordingly, the Court is constrained to affirm the Panel’s decision.

Proceedings

On or about February 15, 2024, the Board filed a Formal Disciplinary Charges Petition (“Disciplinary Petition”) against Budd pursuant to M. Bar. R. 13(e), all relating to Budd’s conduct toward Samantha Pike (“Pike”) before, during and after a three-day national conference for treatment court professionals that occurred in Nashville, Tennessee in 2022. The Disciplinary Petition alleges two counts of discrimination and harassment in violation of M. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(g); one count of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of M. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d); and one catchall count of conduct in violation of M. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). Budd filed an Answer, and in due course the Panel was convened consisting of two practicing attorneys and one public member. The Panel conducted a public disciplinary hearing on October 24 and 25, and November 13, 2024. After hearing, the parties submitted written closing arguments and subsequently briefed specific questions posed by the Panel. A majority of the Panel (one of the attorneys and the public member) issued a Report of Findings and Order of the Grievance Commission on February 14, 2025 (the “Panel Decision”).

The Panel concluded that Budd did not commit discrimination and harassment in violation of M. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(g), because his conduct at the conference was not “related to the practice of law” as that phrase is defined in M. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(3). However, the Panel concluded that Budd did commit misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of M. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a) & (d). Nevertheless, the Panel found that Budd’s misconduct was minor; caused only minimal harm; and is unlikely to be repeated. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the appropriate sanction is in admonition under M. Bar. R. 13(e)(10)(B).

In response, on or about March 7, 2025, the Board filed a Petition for Review (the “Petition”) pursuant to M. Bar. R. 13(f)(1). The Chief Justice assigned a Single Justice to decide the Petition. On April 11, 2025, the Board’s Executive Director filed the record of the proceedings. The Single Justice convened a status conference, at which the Board and Budd declined the opportunity for any further briefing or oral argument, unless requested by the Single Justice. Neither party moved for a trial of the facts. M. Bar. R. 13(f)(3). By Procedural Order dated June 12, 2025, the Single Justice asked for oral argument on a list of specific questions. Oral argument was conducted via Zoom on June 25, 2025. The Petition is now ready for decision.

Facts found 

The Panel found that the following conduct occurred on the evening of July 25, 2022, after the conference events were concluded for the day: Budd and Pike and other drug court team members went to several bars in Nashville that night. Budd and Pike both consumed alcohol during the evening. After bar hopping, Budd, Pike and A.O., another drug court team member, walked to A.O.’s hotel. Budd and Pike then shared a Lyft ride to the Gaylord Hotel, which was the site of the conference and where they both had rooms. Upon arrival at the Gaylord Hotel, Budd told Pike that his room was next to her room, which turned out to be untrue. Budd and Pike rode an elevator together to the fourth floor of one wing of the hotel. During the ride in the elevator where they were alone, Budd made a comment to Pike about her attractive appearancе.

Upon arriving at the door to Pike’s room, Budd told her that he would not enter her room unless she invited him in. There was no one else in the hallway at that time. Pike did not extend an invitation to Budd to enter her room. Budd invited Pike to join him for drinks in the hotel bar. Pike initially offered reasons why she would not accompany Budd to the bar but then accepted the offer because she did not want to alienate or offend Budd, who was the drug court judge. They arrived at the hotel bar between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. At the bar, Budd had more alcohol to drink. While in the bar, Budd discussed with Pike aspects of his and Pike’s personal lives, his marriage, his codependent tendencies, and whether he favored attractive female drug court defendants. After conversing for a while, Budd and Pike parted company and went to their respective rooms.

The Panel found that the following conduct occurred on the next night, July 26, 2022: Members of the drug court team including Budd and Pike again went bar hopping after the event. Budd initially met Pike and A.O. at A.O.’s hotel. While there and standing outside A.O.’s hotel room, Budd commented to A.O. in the presence of Pike that he could see A.O.’s undergarments on her bed and that she should not feel uncomfortable about that when A.O. appeared before him in court. Pike attempted for the rest of the evening to distance herself from Budd as she felt uncomfortable by their interactions on July 25 and his comment to A.O. At one of the bars on the evening of July 26, Budd again made comments about Pike’s attractive appearance. Pike felt uncomfortable around Budd that evening and eventually left the bar where Budd was and made her way back to the Gaylord Hotel. She texted Budd to let him know that she had left the bar. He responded with text messages indicating that he had been ditched and that he would no longer bring donuts to Pike at the drug court sessions. There was no additional interaction between Pike and Budd at the conference.

The Panel also found that on July 27, 2022, while atat the t conference, Budd encountered Natasha Irving (“Irving”), the District Attorney for Maine prosecutorial district 6, and Richard Gordon (“Gordon”), then the statewide coordinator for the Maine treatment courts, in the hallway at the conference. Budd and Irving did not know each other. After being introduced by Gordon, a brief conversation ensued which included a discussion of which hotel each of them was staying at. When Irving indicated that she was not staying at the Gaylord Hotel, Budd made a comment to the effect that she could stay in his room. Gordon then reportedly ushered Budd away from Irving and there was no further communication between Budd and Irving.

The Panel found that the following events occurred after the conference: Pike did not attend the next regularly scheduled drug court session on August 3, 2022. Pike did attend the scheduled drug court session on August 17, 2022. After the conclusion of the morning session, Budd asked to see Pike in his chambers. Budd had never requested Pike to appear alone in his chambers before this date. Pike was apprehensive but did appear at the door to chambers, as requested. Pike did not feel comfortable entering chambers and stayed in the doorway. Budd then commented to Pike that he had been reflecting on their conversation in Nashville and that he was going to be making some changes in his personal life. He also approached Pike and told her that she was a good listener. Pike was upset at this interaction in light of the interactions she had with Budd in Nashville. She left the courthouse crying that day and did not stay for the afternoon session of drug court as she normally would.

Not clearly erroneous

Here, since the Panel found that all of the conditions necessary to impose an admonition were present, the Court cannot impose a more serious sanction-without reversing the Panel’s findings of fact.

This is exactly what the Board asks the Single Justice to do. Specifically, the Board asks the Court to find that Budd’s misconduct was not merely minor; that he caused more than minimal injury; and/or that his conduct is likely to be repeated. The Court, however, must defer to the Panel’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. The Board urges the Court to work around the clearly erroneous standard in a number of ways.

The court did not find any basis to overturn the findings and admonition.

The case is Board of Bar Overseers v, Budd, Docket No. Bar 25-9.

Maine Public Radio reported on the related civil suit.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ordered that a sexual harassment complaint against a former Maine judge go forward.

The First Circuit reversed the earlier dismissal of a sexual harassment lawsuit against former Penobscot County Adult Drug Treatment and Recovery Court judge Charles Budd Jr.

In her complaint, Samantha Pike, a treatment provider, alleged that Budd made unwelcome sexual advances and inappropriate comments towards her at a conference in 2022, and upon their return to Penobscot County.

In their ruling, the First Circuit judges said that Budd does not have qualified immunity, as he had supervisory authority over Pike and she plausibly alleged a hostile work environment.

The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar admonished Budd last month for his conduct but declined to discipline him further. Budd was placed on administrative leave after the lawsuit was filed, and did not seek re-nomination to remain a judge in 2023.

The case will now return to U.S. District Court for further proceedings.

The decision of the First Circuit is linked here. (Mike Frisch)