The potential reprimand of a judge on Maine’s highest court could be “dangerous” and erode judicial independence, the justice’s attorney said in the latest court filing.
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.
But the committee’s decision “lacks legal support, and is unfair to Justice Connors, whom the record reflects at all times sought to adhere to the applicable ethical rules,” her attorney, James Bowie, wrote in a 48-page filing Friday.
It’s the latest development in the ongoing argument of whether or not a judge violated the court’s ethics policy when she did not recuse herself. It’s the first time a complaint has been made against a supreme court justice, and a panel of six Maine judges will decide what, if any, repercussions Connors will face.
In fact, the committee’s interpretation of the ethical standards is “dangerous” because it ignores the role of lawyers and adds to the public’s misbeliefs of how the roles work, Bowie wrote.
It also appears the committee argues a judge can be sanctioned for how they vote, he said.
“That premise is frightening,” the filing said. “It incents judges to vote based not on what they understand the law to be but based on fear of political retribution.”
The committee has asked the panel to publicly reprimand Connors. It should have been “self-evident” to Connors that there was an appearance of impropriety, the committee 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.
“The later unpopularity of an opinion — be it with a single complainant or a segment of the public — cannot determine whether an ethical violation occurred at the time of the judge’s recusal decision,” Bowie said. “Otherwise, judicial independence corrodes.”
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.
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.
“A reasonable person does not presume the lawyer’s arguments on behalf of a client to be the lawyer’s opinion on the issue,” the filing on behalf of Connors 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.
The recusals became a burden to the other six justices, Connors said previously. Those cases also came more than two years after the confirmation hearings, the filing said.
Before the two cases at the heart of the matter, Connors asked the Committee on Judicial Ethics if she needed to recuse herself and the chair of the advisory committee said the committee was unanimous in the opinion that she did not need to recuse herself.
“Under the Committee’s approach, a complainant unhappy with a decision can ignore rules of judgment finality by impugning the judge’s ethics at any time, even after the judge is no longer there to defend herself,” the filing said.
The committee has until Oct. 10 if it decides to file a reply. After that, the panel will set a date for an oral argument.
If the panel determines Connors violated the ethics rules, the justice asked for a “detailed opinion” so she and other judges will be able to tell “with confidence” when a recusal is mandated in similar cases, the filing said.
Any decision the panel reaches will affect recusal decisions for judges throughout the state, both sides agree.
