CT judge faces legislative criticism, withdraws from consideration for reappointment
A Connecticut family court judge has failed to win reappointment after legislators confronted him about being admonished for what was described as an outburst of “frustration” directed at a person who appeared before him.
Semi-retired Superior Court State Referee Michael E. Shay of Wilton was the only one of 19 judicial nominees who failed to clear the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee Tuesday after being nominated for reappointment by Gov. Ned Lamont.
Shay asked Lamont to withdraw him from consideration when it became clear reappointment would not clear the committee.
“I respectfully request that you withdraw my nomination to be a state referee. I have enjoyed working as Superior Court judge and as a judge trial referee for the past 24 years,” Shay said. “It has been my honor and ultimate privilege to serve the residents of this state.”
Shay, 78, was appointed to the Superior Court by former Gov. John G. Rowland in 2000. He became a semi-retired referee when reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70.
According to information presented at the committee hearing, Shay was admonished by the state’s ultra secret Judicial Review Council for berating the son of an elderly litigant for failing to follow one of his orders when, in fact, he had not issued an order.
“I just took my frustration out on this gentleman,” Shay told committee members. “I regret it. It was a bad moment on a busy day. If I could take it back I would.”
The council has authority to issue an admonishment when it finds that a judge has “acted in a manner which gives the appearance of impropriety or constitutes an unfavorable judicial or magisterial practice.”
Shay also was criticized by state Rep. Steven Staftstrom, D-Bridgeport, for a judicial decision in which he cited a minority dissent in a Supreme Court decision as controlling law. The decision later drew a sharp rebuke from the Supreme Court in a footnote to a decision in which Shay is referred to as “the trial court.”
“The trial court also devoted several pages of its memorandum of decision to critiquing the majority opinion in Bender, posing rhetorical questions about the implications of the holding and making clear that it much preferred, and even ‘agreed’ with, the reasoning of the dissenting opinion,” former Chief Justice Chase Rogers wrote.
“In the trial court’s view, when faced with a majority and dissenting opinion on a matter, ‘the best course for the court is to attempt to reconcile both positions, if possible, and then to apply that reasoning to the particular facts at . . . hand.’ Our disapproval of this aspect of the trial court’s decision cannot be overstated,” Rogers wrote.
The other judges up for reappointment cleared the committee without issue.
