Michael Shay withdraws his candidacy for reappointment to bench after admonishment

HARTFORD — A 24-year judicial career was on the verge of ending this week, when a 78year-old former Superior Court judge withdrew his candidacy as a part-time courtroom judge referee, after nearly an hour of questions and criticism from members of the legislative Judiciary Committee.

Michael E. Shay of Wilton, who was appointed a state Superior Court judge in 2000, withdrew his nomination shortly after a Tuesday public hearing in which lawmakers focused on a courtroom incident that led to his March, 2023 admonishment by the state’s Judicial Review Council, as well as criticism in a decision from the state Supreme Court.

Later in the day, before the committee had a scheduled vote, Shay dropped his candidacy.

“I respectfully request that you withdraw my nomination to be a state referee,” Shay wrote to

Gov. Ned Lamont. “I have enjoyed working as Superior Court judge and as a judge trial referee for the past 24 years. It has been my honor and ultimate privilege to serve the residents of this state.” His current term, for which he is paid about $300 per day, ends on Feb. 29, according to the Judicial Department.

Lawmakers including state Sen. Gary Winfield and Rep. Steve Stafstrom, the co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, along with Rep. Craig Fishbein, a top Republican on the panel, were joined by Rep. Tom O’Dea and Rep. Melissa Osborne, in leading the questioning during a nearly four-hour long meeting that reviewed the credentials of 18 other jurists, all of whom were confirmed in the committee, then overwhelmingly approved on Wednesday in the House and Senate.

“I think there was concern in the committee based on the recent admonishment in the Judicial Review Council,” said Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, in a Wednesday

interview, noting that the review council had focused on Shay’s demeanor in a Stamford Superior Court case involving a restraining order and a longtime married couple who needed the assistance of a Farsi interpreter and were not represented by attorneys.

“I erroneously believed than an order was ignored, and took my frustration out on the son of one of the parties,” Shay told the committee. “I fully accept the admonishment. I believe my conduct was unacceptable. I can assure you that I will not act in a similar fashion in the future.”

“This incident certainly smacked of being overly harsh to pro se litigants, managing a difficult and stressful family and domestic situation,” Stafstrom said. “In addition to that, there was a decision by the Supreme Court some years ago that admonished Judge Shay for his respect for the rule of law in terms of following majority supreme court precedence.” In that 2014 case involving pension rights,

Shay sided with a previous dissenting opinion on the high court, not the majority. “Our disapproval of this aspect of the trial court’s decision cannot be overstated,” the high court said in a footnote for that case.

Shay has served in the Stamford/Norwalk, Danbury and Ansonia/Milford districts. He took senior status in 2010 and became a state referee in October, 2015 when he turned 70.

Fishbein, R-Wallingford, led the questioning on the issue that came up during a request to extend a restraining order in Stamford court. “I try to do my best to move cases along,” Shay said during the committee’s virtual hearing during Tuesday’s snow storm. “If you’re asking if I’m losing it, my short answer is no. I believe I’m very capable, I’m confident, I still enjoy what I do. I can make a contribution. I’ve written over 700 decisions.”

“It’s rare that somebody does complain,” Fishbein noted, “and that the complaint actually gets to fruition.”

Under further questioning from Stafstrom, who noted that about once a year the committee takes notice of an admonishment, Shay said that about 140 of his decisions were eventually appealed. “I have to call it as I see it and I think that’s part of being a trial judge,” Shay said. “That’s part of being decisive.”

“I’m sure that there isn’t a judge that’s ever sat that hasn’t shown some irritation at some point, or some aggravation,” Shay said. “This particular incident was just a bad moment. I was wrong and, you know, I do not see that happening again.”

“What’s the lesson that you’re imparting to your colleagues?” asked Winfield, D-New Haven.

“The lesson I’m imparting to my colleagues, especially the younger ones is that you do have to be basically on your guard,” Shay said. “You have to make sure that when you enter the courtroom, and your frame of mind is these people are here, they’re looking for our help, they want a decision. They want to be heard.”

“Having appeared before you, that was out of character,” said O’Dea, R-New Canaan, who is a lawyer. “I was surprised when I heard it.”