On Monday, January 6, 2025, the Portland Press Herald reported that Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Catherine Connors is contesting a recommendation from a judicial ethics committee that she face disciplinary action for not recusing herself from two foreclosure cases, which have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. The cases in question have been criticized for undermining protections for homeowners struggling with mortgage payments.
Connors, who previously represented banking interests in related legal matters before her appointment to the high court, asserts that she did not have any conflicts of interest in these cases. Her attorney, James Bowie, argued that the allegations against her could lead to a misuse of recusal requests, labeling them as “weaponized.” Bowie also emphasized that any decision regarding potential sanctions should be made by the state supreme court itself, rather than by an external panel of judges, as suggested by the ethics committee.
Last month, the Committee on Judicial Conduct recommended that Connors receive a public reprimand, which is considered the lowest level of disciplinary action. The committee referenced statements made by Connors during her confirmation hearing in 2020, in which she indicated that she would err on the side of recusal in cases involving foreclosure appeals. The committee proposed that her reprimand include language underscoring the importance of transparency from judicial candidates during confirmation hearings.
This situation marks a significant moment in Maine’s judicial history, as it is the first instance where a complaint against a state supreme court justice has been forwarded from the committee to the court, along with a recommendation for disciplinary action. The complaint was initially filed in January 2024 by Thomas A. Cox, an attorney specializing in foreclosure cases based in Yarmouth.
In Maine, the Supreme Judicial Court holds the authority to determine the outcomes of judicial disciplinary matters. However, the ethics committee has suggested that the case be reviewed by either a panel of judges from the Maine Superior Court or judges from other states, rather than by Connors’ fellow justices on the supreme court. Connors maintains that the case should be adjudicated by her peers on the state supreme court.
Bowie highlighted the committee’s request for not only a reprimand but also guidance on what is required of judicial candidates during confirmation hearings. He argued that these important policy questions should be addressed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, as there is no statutory or rule-based authority for delegating such matters to an ad hoc group of judges from other jurisdictions.
The foreclosure cases at the center of this controversy—Finch v. U.S. Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Chase Acquisition Corp. v. Camille J. Moulton—were decided by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled 4-3 in favor of the banks, with Connors being part of the majority. This ruling reversed previous decisions established in 2017 cases, such as Pushard v. Bank of America and Federal National Mortgage Association v. Deschaine, which had provided significant protections for homeowners by declaring mortgages unenforceable if lenders did not comply with required notices of default.
Prior to her judicial career, Connors submitted an amicus brief supporting the Maine Bankers Association in the Deschaine case and represented Bank of America in the Pushard case. After the oral arguments for the Finch appeal, Connors sought advice from the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics regarding her potential recusal from both the Finch and Moulton cases. The committee advised her that recusal was not necessary, as she had not represented the plaintiffs in either case.
In her response to the ethics committee’s recommendation, Connors’ attorney expressed concern that labeling her past work for banking interests as a conflict of interest could lead to a troubling precedent. Bowie asserted that such a classification risks enabling litigants to manipulate recusal requests based on a judge’s previous legal representation, undermining the very purpose of appointing judges based on their qualifications and experience.
Source: Portland Press Herald
