A public reprimand against a judge sitting on Maine’s highest court is necessary to encourage judges to be aware of the appearance of impropriety in the future, a state committee said.
Justice Catherine Connors violated Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct by not recusing herself from two foreclosure cases before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the Committee on Judicial Conduct wrote in a 10-page report in December.
A panel of six Maine judges will decide what, if any, repercussions Connors will face. This is the first time a complaint has been made against a supreme court justice.
The committee submitted a 45-page brief outlining why it believes the justice should face public reprimand. It was filed Aug. 27 but only put on the state court’s website Wednesday after an inquiry from the Bangor Daily News.
Connors has until Sept. 26 to file a response and has no comment at this time, her attorney Jim Bowie said.
“Unfortunately, to date, Justice Connors’ failure to acknowledge her violation of [the judicial code of conduct] and breach of public trust should be a factor in considering the appropriate sanction,” the committee’s brief said.
The ethics complaint against Connors was filed by lawyer Tom Cox on Jan. 18, 2024.
Connors ruled with the majority on two cases about foreclosure before the state’s highest court in January 2024. She represented banks and filed briefs on their behalf as a lawyer in the years before Gov. Janet Mills appointed her to Maine’s top court in 2020.
She spent 30 years as a lawyer with a firm that had a relationship with Maine Bankers Association. During that time, she represented mortgage owners and servicers in cases before the supreme court.
If Connors had recused herself, the rulings would have stayed in favor of homeowners, the committee said. Instead, the rulings went in favor of the banks. Those decisions will likely establish precedent for people in Maine who may face foreclosure in the future, the brief said.
Under the Maine Judicial Code of Conduct, a judge should recuse themselves “in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” It says if a reasonable person who knows all the facts would question a judge’s ability to be impartial, the judge should excuse themselves from the case.
“It is not unusual for a politician to make campaign promises that are not kept after he or she is elected,” the committee’s brief said. “Although the public is used to this and grudgingly accepts it as ‘just politics,’ individuals who seek to and then sit on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court are bound to the highest standards of ethical behavior both in and outside of the Court.”
A public reprimand would encourage other judges to be sensitive to the “appearance of impropriety” moving forward, the brief said.
During Connors’ confirmation hearing before the Legislature, she said she would recuse herself from cases related to her time as a lawyer, which she did during her first two years on the bench, the committee and Connors agree.
A judge should err on the side of caution in recusing themselves from cases, the brief said. It’s not a question of if Connors thought she could be fair, but instead the standard is if a “reasonable person knowing all of the facts would reasonably question her impartiality.”
It should have been “self-evdient” to Connors that there was an appearance of impropriety, the brief said.
She chose to participate in one case before asking for guidance from Maine’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics and continued with the second after she received that guidance. The Judicial Ethics Committee told Connors it did not think she needed to recuse herself, according to an email included in the December report.
Her affirmative vote in the case of Finch v. U.S. Bank resulted in a 4-3 decision in favor of the bank and overturned a decision that was considered settled after a 2017 case.
“Unfortunately, despite overwhelming information that could, should, and would cause a reasonable person to question her impartiality, Justice Connors affirmatively chose to actively participate in the Finch oral argument before even seeking any outside advice,” the committee’s brief said.
