Judge turned down for School of Law job after controversial decision

Boston University decided not to hire a former Norfolk probate judge after her decision on a case involving the abortion of a mentally ill woman’s fetus sparked controversy and press attention, officials said.

Christina Harms, who retired from her post on Jan. 11, was set to meet with Human Resources on Jan. 19 to sign paperwork indicating her appointment as the associate director for Judicial Clerkship Advising, according to an email from Harms’s spokeswoman.

Harms postponed the meeting due to a death in the family, but received confirmation that the meeting would take place on Jan. 23, the email stated.

BU, however, reportedly decided not to hire Harms after learning about the controversy surrounding a case Harms heard involving a pregnant woman with schizophrenia. In the case, brought forth by the woman’s parents, Harms ordered the woman to abort her pregnancy and get sterilized.

Harms received a phone call on Jan. 24 from Maura Kelly, the assistant dean of Career Development, in which Kelly said “the University decided not to proceed” with the appointment due to the media attention involving the case.

Stephen Burgay, vice president of Marketing and Communications, said the School of Law decided not to hire Harms because the controversy associated with her would prevent her from providing opportunities for law students.

“It was just clear by watching the reaction around Judge Harms that she attracted great controversy,” he said in a phone interview. “Our question was ‘Is [Harms in] this position going to be able to open the largest possible options for our students?’ ”

Burgay said BU never officially offered Harms the position, but that she had been a candidate until they reviewed more information about her and the attention they had received.

Jenny Carron, assistant to Law Dean Maureen O’Rourke, also said there had been several discussions with the judge about the position, but no offer.

In the case, the parents of the 31-year-old pregnant woman, referred to as “Mary Moe,” asked to be appointed their daughter’s legal guardians, said Karen Schwartzman, Harms’s spokeswoman. The parents asked the court to determine the proper course of action for their daughter, as her mental condition prevents her from doing so.

“The parents wanted Mary Moe to have an abortion,” Schwartzman said. “They were . . . saying to the judge if she were competent she would make an abortion [and were] asking the judge to make that determination.”

Schwartzman said Moe’s schizophrenia medication put the fetus at risk and would have to stop taking it to protect the fetus. However, Moe would have threatened her own well being by discontinuing the medication.

The woman aborted her first of three pregnancies. While she carried the second one to term, her parents are raising the son, Schwartzman said. The parents argued that it would not be in her best interest to give birth to another child.

Harms’s decision concluded Moe was incapable of making the decision partly based on several questionable and false claims, Schwartzman said.

Moe claimed she opposed the abortion because she is a devout Catholic. However, Schwartzman said she had not only undergone an abortion in her first pregnancy, but also engaged in pre-marital sex with multiple partners and did not attend church regularly. She also claimed at one point that she wasn’t pregnant and that she had a daughter named Nancy, both of which were false.

The judge determined if the woman were in her right state of mind, she would decide to have an abortion, Schwartzman said.

It is not certain whether or not the woman aborted her first pregnancy willingly and if she was on the same medication throughout the second pregnancy, Schwartzman said. While the information may have appeared in the court records in written decision, they were sealed when sent to the Appeals Court.

Schwartzman said no BU official ever asked Harms about her reasoning behind the decision and that none had access due to the sealed records.

BU officials, however, focused on the reaction to the decision rather than the decision itself, Burgay said.

“We felt that an individual who brought a degree of notoriety would not be the most effective person in opening the biggest number of doors,” he said.

Harms approached BU in August 2011 with the idea to help place law students into clerkships and unpaid internships, according to her email.

Schwartzman said Harms, who worked on the bench for 23 years, had several law students working under her direction as interns. The judge’s experience could help BU, which Schwartzman said ranked low compared to other colleges in terms of law schools.

“BU doesn’t have a strong track record in placing its law students in paid clerkships and internships,” she said.

Carron said while officials try to improve the schools standing, they are not “lacking” in that category.

Schwartzman noted a U.S. World News ranking that reviewed which college’s 2009 graduates are most likely to be employed as Federal judicial clerks with Article III Federal judges. The ranking, released in April 28, 2011, listed BU as 51st on the website.

However, U.S. World News’s Best Law Schools list ranked BU as the 18th best college in March 2011.

Harms’s attorney Joan Lukey sent a letter to Dean Maureen O’Rourke on Jan. 30, requesting that the School of Law to reconsider rescinding what she called the “offer” made to her.

“Certainly, the lawyers and judges of this city and beyond, as well as your student body and the public, will be left to wonder what this decision says about the University’s ideal of academic freedom, if your approach to judicial freedom is to be taken as an indication,” the letter stated.

In a letter sent to Lukey on Feb. 1, Deputy General Counsel Erika Geetter wrote that the judge was considered for, but not offered an administrative position, which involved “marketing to a wide variety of people within the School and the legal community.”

Geetter stated the office of General Counsel worried about whether or not the controversy would make the judge’s work less effective.

Geetter declined to comment to The Daily Free Press.

In a Feb. 14 response to Geetter’s letter, Lukey wrote that the office of General Counsel and the judge had an “area of significant disagreement,” as Harmes believed she accepted an offer of employment for the position. All that remained was filling out the final paper work.

Schwartzman said Harms plans to offer her services to other colleges and universities.

Burgay said the spot was posted as an open position in late 2011 and remains vacant. BU is seeking to fill the position, however.