
Former judge accused of harassment violated rules of conduct for attorneys, panel finds
Feb. 17—The Maine bar has agreed to publicly admonish a former Bangor judge, but not to impose any discipline against him, for unwelcome comments he made to women at a professional conference.
Charles Budd was in charge of Bangor's drug treatment court in 2022 when he and several others in the program attended a multiday conference in Nashville. There, drug treatment counselor Samantha Pike said, Budd sexually harassed her several times.
Pike has previously said Budd appeared to drink more than what was appropriate while in Nashville, where he was surrounded by attorneys, counselors and probation officers he regularly oversaw in court. His sexual propositions and comments about Pike's appearance and that of other women made her uncomfortable when they returned to Maine, she has said.
Budd was placed on administrative leave that fall, according to the state judicial branch. When his term expired in early 2023, he chose not to reapply.
Budd did not respond to an email Monday afternoon seeking his reaction to the panel's decision.
On Friday, members of a disciplinary panel for the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar determined Budd had violated Maine's rules for professional conduct, specifically those barring any activity "prejudicial to the administration of justice."
Budd should have known his comments to Pike and others "would be construed as sexual advances or unwelcome," they said. The admonition is supposed to "send a message that comments and behavior of the type described here will not be tolerated."
"As a sitting judge, Budd was bound by the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to 'act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the ... integrity ... of the judiciary; to avoid impropriety; and to avoid the appearance of impropriety," two of the three panel members wrote.
But the board did not find that Budd had violated their rules against harassment, because his conduct occurred at a conference in Nashville and not in a more professional setting, like a courtroom or a law office.
Unlike the American Bar Association, Maine's standards don't address alleged harassment that might occur in "business or social activities in connection with the practice of law," the panel wrote. The members decided this is a "seemingly intentional omission."
The Maine bar panel's decision Friday does not make any findings on allegations that Budd treated women differently in his court, despite testimony about this from a Penobscot County prosecutor.
During a three-day hearing in October, the panel heard extensively from Budd, Pike and other witnesses from the Nashville trip.
Natasha Irving, a district attorney on the Midcoast, told the panel Budd had propositioned her during a brief encounter in Tennessee.
Pike and Irving sued Budd in November 2022 for his conduct on the Nashville trip. That complaint was dismissed in 2023 by U.S. District Judge Lance Walker, but the women were still waiting Monday to see whether the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upholds that dismissal.
Their attorney, Laura White, said her clients were pleased Budd was admonished but "feel strongly that the sanction was not severe enough for the conduct alleged." They disagreed with the panel's decision that this wasn't considered harassment under Maine's rules.
"Budd's conduct while attending the conference as a member of the Maine judiciary was intricately connected to the harassment that later continued in the courtroom and in chambers," White wrote in an email.
When Pike returned to Budd's court after the Nashville trip, she told the panel she had to bring a supervisor out of fear. Still, she said, Budd called her into his office and told her he was "making a lot of changes" at home. She took this to mean that Budd planned to leave his wife and pursue her.
She was so uncomfortable that she left court in the middle of the workday, which the panel acknowledged in its ruling.
"Reading between the lines, the Commission concluded that Budd's conduct in court was subjectively offensive to Pike, but not objectively offensive enough to be considered 'harassment,'" White said. "That conclusion is beyond disappointing given the full evidentiary record considered by the Commission."
The panel noted that Budd admitted to some of the alleged statements and disputed others. But he "never acknowledged that any of the conduct alleged ... was inappropriate and could reasonably be construed as making others uncomfortable."
Budd repeatedly cast his actions as getting to know other drug court participants "on a personal level," the panel members wrote, and "never acknowledged that his status as a judge created an imbalance of power."
Copy the Story Link

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Pam Bondi's 'shocking' strategy should cost her
The Attorney General of the United States is considered the nation's top lawyer. As head of the Department of Justice, Pam Bondi leads the nation's largest law office. No federal precedent, and nothing in her oath of office, exempts her from the code of ethics, federal pleading rules, or the rule of law all attorneys swear to uphold. Lawyers who work for the government have a duty to seek justice, whether facts lead to acquittal or conviction. For that reason, they are expected to avoid public statements displaying partiality because such statements undermine public trust in the legal system. The American Bar Association directs in Rule 3.6 that: A lawyer who is participating… in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial (outside the court) statement that … will be disseminated (publicly) and have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. In other words, try your case in court, not on TV. Only supported facts of evidence are allowed in a courtroom; demagoguery and assertions of opinion unsupported by admissible evidence are not allowed. That is why judges have frequently admonished Trump attorneys that statements to the press are not evidence. Despite the clarity of the ABA rule, Bondi has consistently argued pending cases on TV. Pressing Trump's legal positions on Fox News, Bondi has repeatedly lied to half the nation that it is up to Trump to decide what the law requires. Every first-year law student knows that the judicial branch, not the executive, decides what the law is. If that were not the case, a president could write his own laws, as Trump and Bondi are trying to do. Bondi appears more committed to defying the courts, including the Supreme Court, on Fox News than she is to upholding the law, painting the illegal seizure of migrants in 'Trump is your savior' rhetoric jarring to the ears of any real lawyer. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador without a constitutionally required process. Under Bondi's supervision, the DOJ argued that it doesn't understand plain English, urging that the term 'facilitate' is limited to 'removing any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien's ability to return here.' The word 'domestic' does not arguably appear anywhere in the order. SCOTUS ordered the Government 'to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.' Rather than respect the plain language of the order, Bondi's strategy is to play games to either render the ruling null or to challenge the court's authority. As an example of the latter, the Justice Department filed an emergency motion to stay the Abrego Garcia order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, aggressively challenging the court's authority by pleading that, 'The federal courts do not have the authority to press-gang the President or his agents into taking any particular act of diplomacy.' The Appellate Court was triggered. Without waiting for the plaintiffs' response, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a sharp rebuke, written by a Reagan appointee, calling the government's pleading 'shocking.' The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear. Federal pleading rules require attorneys to certify that the legal contentions they assert are warranted by existing law or a reasonable argument for modifying the law, and that the factual contentions have evidentiary support. Rule 11 states that a court may impose sanctions on any attorney responsible for violating the pleading rule, including supervising attorneys. None of the facts surrounding migrants' El Salvador deportations have been pled with evidentiary support, which means Bondi has either allowed — or directed — attorneys under her supervision to file unsupported pleadings. Nor can her 'shocking' strategy be deemed a reasonable argument to modify the only is Bondi authorizing her attorneys to file unsupported pleadings, but she has also punished staff for making accurate statements to the court. In April, she directed the dismissal of Erez Reuveni, a career immigration lawyer, for acknowledging to the court that Garcia had been deported to El Salvador in error. Shortly thereafter, a 10-year veteran of the same unit resigned, and said in an email obtained by the NYT that he could not 'with clean conscience' defend the department's actions under Bondi, claiming they ran counter to the law, Constitution and 'basic principles of fairness and humanity.' Bondi's latest ethical transgression has not yet made it to court, but it likely will. Last week, Bondi declared that, under the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Trump can legally accept a 'flying palace 747 jumbo jet' as a gift from Qatar, a country that has directly funded Hamas terrorism. Qatar's financial and political ties to Hamas have long been known. In a legal memorandum, Bondi concluded that the gift was 'legally permissible,' apparently reasoning that because the gift is not officially conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery. No such limiting language appears in the Constitution; Bondi just put it there. Bondi's analysis also concluded that the gift complies with the law because the plane is not being given to an individual, but rather to the United States Air Force and, eventually, to the presidential library foundation, where Trump will then make personal use of it. Pity the DOJ lawyer Bondi will force to sign bad faith legal jujitsu when it ends up before a judge. After Trump leaves office, the 747 would be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library. This is plainly a $400 million gift from a foreign government to Trump himself, perhaps meant as a 'tip' following Trump's private $5.5 billion Trump International Golf Club deal with Dar Global and Qatari Diar, a company created from Qatar's sovereign wealth fund in 2005. It's painfully obvious to anyone outside the Fox News bubble that Trump, who has not divested from his private ventures, is using the Oval Office to enrich himself, aided by unethical counsel. Former federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig observed that Bondi's actions have radically transformed and politicized the DOJ, transmuting it 'into Trump's personal law firm,' which is 'a rejection of the founding principle of the rule of law.' Although four years feels interminable, Trump is not a permanent fixture, and he will be out of office while Bondi still needs her law license. Bondi seems not to care, suggesting she has no intention of practicing law after Trump's departure. Perhaps she intends to return to lobbying, where she previously earned over $100,000 a month lobbying for Qatar. (Can you say conflict of interest?) Bondi has already met the threshold of bad faith for disbarment. An attorney who trashes the rule of law must know that eventually she will be barred from practicing it.


Business Wire
4 days ago
- Business Wire
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a Leading Securities Fraud Law Firm Encourages Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) Investors To Inquire About Securities Fraud Class Action
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a leading national shareholder rights law firm, announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fortrea Holdings Inc. ('Fortrea' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: FTRE) securities between , inclusive (the 'Class Period'). Fortrea investors have until August 1, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion. What Happened? On September 25, 2024, the investment bank Jefferies downgraded Fortrea from buy to hold, citing perceived weaknesses in the Company's business model as a contract research organization ('CRO') amid pressure on biotechnology funding and that the cost savings Fortrea expects to achieve by existing transition services agreements ('TSAs') are 'not as material as one might think.' On this news, Fortrea's stock price fell $2.73, or 12.3%, to close at $19.48 per share on September 25, 2024, thereby injuring investors. Then, on December 6, 2024, Baird Equity Research stated that '[g]iven our ongoing concerns around the sector, [Fortrea's] choppy history post spin, and lack of clarity on the abrupt communications course change, we cannot recommend an actionable investment (buy or sell)[.]' On this news, Fortrea's stock price fell $1.90, or 8.1%, to close at $21.67 per share on December 6, 2024. Then, on March 3, 2025, before the market opened, Fortrea announced financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2024, revealing the Company had missed its previously announced guidance for revenue and adjusted EBITDA for the full year 2024. The Company's financial results revealed full year adjusted EBITDA of $202.5 million, well below the Company's previously announced guidance of $220 million to $240 million. The Company also revealed full year revenue of $2.696 billion, which missed previously announced guidance of $2.7 billion to $2.725 billion. The Company further revealed financial guidance for the full year 2025, which projected declines in revenue and adjusted EBITDA, with revenues of $2.450 billion to $2.550 billion and adjusted EBITDA in the range of $170 million to $200 million. Thomas Pike ('Pike'), the Company's then-Chief Executive Officer ('CEO'), explained that 'full-service work for projects from the pre-spin period,' 'have less revenue and less profitability' and 'post-spin work is not coming on fast enough to offset the pre-spin contract economics.' Pike further revealed 'this older versus newer mix issue will continue to negatively impact our financial performance during 2025.' On this news, Fortrea shares fell $3.47, or 25.1%, to close at $10.38 per share on March 3, 2025, thereby injuring investors further. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Fortrea overestimated the amount of revenue the Pre-Spin Projects were likely to contribute to the Company's 2025 earnings; (2) Fortrea overstated the cost savings it would likely achieve by exiting the TSAs; (3) as a result, the Company's previously announced EBITDA targets for 2025 were inflated; (4) accordingly, the viability of the Company's post-Spin-Off business model, as well as its business and/or financial prospects, were overstated; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fortrea securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 1, 2025 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 Email: shareholders@ Telephone: 310-201-9150, Toll-Free: 888-773-9224 Visit our website at Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


Business Wire
4 days ago
- Business Wire
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Encourages Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) Investors To Inquire About Securities Fraud Class Action
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Fortrea Holdings Inc. ('Fortrea' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: FTRE) securities between , inclusive (the 'Class Period'). Fortrea investors have until August 1, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Encourages Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) Investors To Inquire About Securities Fraud Class Action Share IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR FORTREA HOLDINGS INC. (FTRE) INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. You can also contact the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss your legal rights by email at info@ by telephone at (310) 914-5007, or visit our website at What Happened? On September 25, 2024, the investment bank Jefferies downgraded Fortrea from buy to hold, citing perceived weaknesses in the Company's business model as a contract research organization ('CRO') amid pressure on biotechnology funding and that the cost savings Fortrea expects to achieve by existing transition services agreements ('TSAs') are 'not as material as one might think.' On this news, Fortrea's stock price fell $2.73, or 12.3%, to close at $19.48 per share on September 25, 2024, thereby injuring investors. Then, on December 6, 2024, Baird Equity Research stated that '[g]iven our ongoing concerns around the sector, [Fortrea's] choppy history post spin, and lack of clarity on the abrupt communications course change, we cannot recommend an actionable investment (buy or sell)[.]' On this news, Fortrea's stock price fell $1.90, or 8.1%, to close at $21.67 per share on December 6, 2024. Then, on March 3, 2025, before the market opened, Fortrea announced financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2024, revealing the Company had missed its previously announced guidance for revenue and adjusted EBITDA for the full year 2024. The Company's financial results revealed full year adjusted EBITDA of $202.5 million, well below the Company's previously announced guidance of $220 million to $240 million. The Company also revealed full year revenue of $2.696 billion, which missed previously announced guidance of $2.7 billion to $2.725 billion. The Company further revealed financial guidance for the full year 2025, which projected declines in revenue and adjusted EBITDA, with revenues of $2.450 billion to $2.550 billion and adjusted EBITDA in the range of $170 million to $200 million. Thomas Pike ('Pike'), the Company's then-Chief Executive Officer ('CEO'), explained that 'full-service work for projects from the pre-spin period,' 'have less revenue and less profitability' and 'post-spin work is not coming on fast enough to offset the pre-spin contract economics.' Pike further revealed 'this older versus newer mix issue will continue to negatively impact our financial performance during 2025.' On this news, Fortrea shares fell $3.47, or 25.1%, to close at $10.38 per share on March 3, 2025, thereby injuring investors further. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Fortrea overestimated the amount of revenue the Pre-Spin Projects were likely to contribute to the Company's 2025 earnings; (2) Fortrea overstated the cost savings it would likely achieve by exiting the TSAs; (3) as a result, the Company's previously announced EBITDA targets for 2025 were inflated; (4) accordingly, the viability of the Company's post-Spin-Off business model, as well as its business and/or financial prospects, were overstated; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Fortrea securities, wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please click HERE or contact us at: This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.