Oral Arguments Wrap in Case Urging MD Appellate Court to Require Judges to Disclose When They Have Donated to One of the Parties

On February 5, 2025, the Appellate Court of Maryland heard oral arguments in HSU Contracting, LLC v. Holton-Arms School, Inc., Case No. ACM-REG-0199-2024 (Md. App.), an appeal that “presents an important question of first impression about the appearance of judicial impartiality,” as appellant’s counsel, Christopher Schafbuch of Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S., explained to the Court.  The panel consisted of Judges Stuart Berger, Donald Beachley, and Michele Hotten.

This construction dispute litigation began when the contractor filed a mechanics lien seeking payment for work it had performed at the Holton-Arms School (the School) in Bethesda, Maryland in 2018.  After a fifteen-day bench trial in Montgomery County Circuit Court, the trial judge awarded a $2.5M judgment in favor of the School.  Months later, the contractor discovered the trial judge’s name in a Holton-Arms Annual Report from 2012 under a heading acknowledging “GIVING FROM GRANDPARENTS, RELATIVES & FRIENDS.”  The School’s brochure also listed the trial judge twice as having donated to an endowment fund the School had established for Pat Dooling, a long-time former teacher whose husband had worked with the trial judge’s wife for several years.  The contractor moved to vacate the judgment, arguing that the Judge should have recused under Maryland Rule 18-102.11—which requires recusal “in any proceeding in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned”—because he never disclosed his status as a Holton-Arms donor.  The trial court denied the motion without a hearing and the contractor appealed.

During oral argument, the panel asked detailed questions of both sides, focusing on the practicality of adopting a rule obligating trial judges to disclose when they have donated money to a party in a case the judge is deciding.  “What if he doesn’t know about the contribution,” Judge Berger asked, “what if the judge’s spouse made the contribution and he was unaware of it?”  Judge Beachley expressed similar concerns, asking “I’ve been a judge since 1994, how would I possibly know what contributions I’ve made when friends have passed away or family that went to Saint Mark’s Church, or Saint James School, how could I possibly remember thirty years of contributions?”  In response, appellant’s counsel said that a “workable rule” is “once a judge takes the bench, they keep a log and just record when they donate to someone.”  Mr. Schafbuch further cautioned the Court that “affirming here would erode trust in the judiciary; it would create a de facto rule that judges need not disclose when they’ve made donations, whether it’s $100 or $100,000.”

Video of the argument is available at the Court’s website, https://www.courts.state.md.us/acm/oralargumentarchives