PORTLAND — York County Judge of Probate Robert M.A. Nadeau has been suspended as a judge for 30 days beginning Oct. 3, and was censured and reprimanded by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in a decision Thursday.

The decision by Maine’s highest court is the result of a 2014 complaint filed by the Maine Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability, which alleged that Nadeau breached judicial canons in his handling of social media and in a letter he wrote to an attorney concerning a protection from harassment case he initiated against his former fiancee.

The justices noted that when the case involving his former fiancee was pending, Nadeau wrote to her attorney in part, “I respectfully submit this is going to become very bad for your client, you and your law firm.”

“He exploited his judicial office for personal gain because he gratuitously invoked his position of judicial and public prominence to advance his personal objective of settling the protection case on his terms,” the seven justices wrote in their 27-page decision.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court found Nadeau guilty of violating two canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct following hearings by Active Retired Justice Robert Clifford and oral arguments heard by the high court in November.

In an emailed statement Thursday, Nadeau said he accepts the court’s ruling.

“The Maine Law Court’s decision that, while representing myself in a private lawsuit, I opined in a communication to my opponent’s lawyer that the litigation would end unfavorably for my opponent’s side of the case if it wasn’t amicably resolved, violated judicial standards concerning my separate job as the York County probate judge simply must be and is accepted and respected,” said Nadeau. “All of the members of Maine’s judiciary take their judicial standards of service and ethics very seriously, and I always will.”

In Maine, probate judges are elected to part-time positions, and may maintain private law practices. Nadeau was first elected in 1996 and re-elected in 2002 and 2004; he lost the 2008 election but was returned to the bench in 2012.

He is seeking re-election in November as an un-enrolled candidate, and is challenged by Democrat Bryan Chabot and Bernard Broder, who is also un-enrolled.

The justices also spoke to a footnote to Nadeau’s letter that referred to an email an attorney wrote to Register of Probate Carol Lovejoy, in which the attorney referred to Nadeau as “his eminence.”

“If that was not meant to be pejorative or disrespectful of me as a jurist and an ethical violation, I request (the attorney’s) full explanation within 10 days from the date of this letter,” the justices quoted Nadeau’s letter.

Because Nadeau’s judicial authority had nothing to do with the matter at hand, the statements in the letter conveyed a threatening tone, the justices found.

“Judge Nadeau’s statements diminished the integrity of the judiciary, and invoked the power and prestige of his office without justification and for his own purposes,” they wrote.

In his emailed statement Thursday, Nadeau pointed out that he does not accept contested cases from attorneys in the law firm for which the recipient of the letter works, a fact acknowledged by the justices in their decision.

“It is important to note that in that private communication I did not mention, nor would I have mentioned or intended, that my job as the probate judge would have ever in any way negatively impacted the treatment of my opponent or her attorney or his boss who, incidentally, is county attorney Gene Libby,” Nadeau said in his statement.

The justices ruled that Nadeau’s characterization of another judge as “very female-biased and unknowing” did not violate judicial canons, and that there were no violations concerning his social media page and website.

However, they pointed out that there have been prior ethics violations on Nadeau’s part.

“As we found in a prior case involving this same judge, (h)is refusal to acknowledge that he acted wrongfully and violated the Code adds to the seriousness of the transgression,” the justices wrote. “Further, this is now the third time that Judge Nadeau has been found to have violated professional ethical standards.”

The justices referred to an instance when Nadeau, acting in his capacity as a lawyer, violated the Maine Bar Rules by making “discourteous and degrading” statements to a judge, and that he had earlier violated the Code of Judicial Conduct as a judge when he lied about an electoral opponent during a campaign for judicial office.

In the latter case, he received a public censure and reprimand as well as a partially probated 30-day suspension from judicial duties, “with the requirement that Judge Nadeau attend an educational program on judicial ethics and cooperate with the Maine Assistance Program.”

The justices said the discipline handed up in those prior instances were designed to provide Nadeau with the tools and incentive “he appears to require to conduct himself in an ethically responsible manner.”

“Our determination here that Judge Nadeau has again violated the Code (of Ethics) demonstrates that the prior corrective efforts have not been effective in dissuading him from engaging in intemperate conduct prohibited by the Canons,” the justices concluded.

Nadeau said in his statement that the matter will not impact the probate court.

“I am determined that the court’s discipline concerning the private communication matter will not negatively impact the continued delivery of the usual case processing and dedicated, thoughtful service and decision making to which I have dedicated my career,” he said. “I look forward to the opportunity to continue to serve through the election and into the next four-year year term in the most cost-effective, continually responsive manner.”

Nadeau could face further action by the court. Findings from another round of complaints filled in 2015 by the judicial oversight committee and heard by Justice Clifford earlier this year were handed up July 15, and the case is now pending.

Clifford found that Nadeau acted in “anger in disappointment” and breached several judicial canons when his request for increased court hours and salary was denied. The judicial oversight committee is seeking Nadeau’s suspension to the end of his current judicial term, which expires Dec. 31.

— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 (local call in Sanford) or 282-1535, ext. 327 or twells@journaltribune.com.