Maine bill would fold county probate courts into state judicial branch; sponsors cite ethics, access and uniformity

Senator Anne Carney introduced LD 17 66 as "an act to incorporate probate judges into the main judicial branch," telling the joint standing committee on the judiciary that the measure implements a constitutional amendment voters approved in 1967 but that the legislature never completed. Carney said the change is intended to address inconsistent practices across 16 county probate courts and to remove ethical conflicts created when part‑time probate judges continue private legal practice.

Supporters described practical benefits and concrete changes. John Bridal of Legal Services for Maine Elders said the bill would replace locally elected, part‑time judges with a system that would preserve registers of probate while creating a uniform set of appointed, full‑time probate judges, improving access and public confidence. Deirdre Smith of Pine Tree Legal Assistance testified the reform "will finally bring an end to the practice of law by judges in Maine," and offered a case where opposing counsel later became the presiding probate judge in a related matter, producing logistical and ethical complications.

Under the proposal outlined in testimony, the state would move from 16 largely independent county probate courts to a smaller group of permanent, full‑time judicial‑branch probate judges (testimony described a plan consolidating positions into eight regional judges plus a ninth chief probate judge). Sponsors said registers of probate would retain their public‑facing functions and that the judicial branch would hire a project manager and other planning staff to oversee a phased implementation targeted for completion on 2029‑01‑01.

Committee members pressed sponsors and witnesses on several operational details. Questions focused on whether new probate judges would be barred from private practice (witnesses said yes, and that the change would make probate judges career judicial officers appointed by the governor), how judges might be allocated across counties with disparate caseloads (testimony described assignment by caseload, geography and capacity under a chief judge), and what would happen to county staff and register functions (registers and deputy registers warned that day‑to‑day clerical and public assistance roles are essential and asked for clarity on how staff resources would be preserved).

Judicial‑branch officials and court staff said substantial planning is required. Julie Finn, representing the judicial branch, told the committee that the branch supports the incorporation but emphasized prerequisites: postponing implementation dates so planning and hiring can occur well before judges come on board, funding for transition personnel, and a robust fiscal note addressing facilities, technology and security needs. Several witnesses urged the committee to preserve registers' roles and to ensure that the shift does not degrade rapid, emergency guardianship procedures currently possible in some counties.

The committee took testimony from attorneys, elder‑advocate groups, current and former probate staff, and county officials. No formal committee vote on the merits occurred during the public hearing. Sponsors and proponents asked the committee to move the bill to work session with amendments addressing implementation timing, a project manager position, and appropriation language for transition costs. The matter will return for legislative work‑session consideration.