On Friday, June 27, 2025, the Portland Press Herald reported that Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court has implemented new rules affecting how complaints against its justices will be handled. This change comes in the wake of a significant complaint filed against Justice Catherine Connors, marking a shift in the judicial disciplinary process.
Historically, the Supreme Judicial Court itself has been responsible for adjudicating all disciplinary cases involving its members. However, the newly established rules now delegate this responsibility to a panel composed of Superior Court justices and District Court judges. This five-member panel will be drawn from a pool of retired judges and the most senior active judges from the two trial courts.
The change in procedure follows a complaint lodged by prominent foreclosure attorney Thomas A. Cox against Justice Connors. Cox argued that Connors should have recused herself from two cases in 2024 that he claimed undermined protections for homeowners. The complaint, submitted in January 2024, was the first of its kind against a Maine Supreme Court justice to be escalated from the Committee on Judicial Conduct to the court, and it resulted in a recommendation for Connors to receive a public reprimand.
The new protocol aims to address concerns about the impartiality of the Supreme Judicial Court when judging its own members. David Sachar, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts, noted that the updated rules reflect best practices while considering the unique context of Maine’s judicial system. Currently, at least 15 other states have similar rules mandating that disciplinary cases involving supreme court justices be managed by judicial officers outside the court.
While the new rules suggest a level of independence, they also retain a mechanism for appeal. Should Justice Connors believe the panel’s findings are incorrect, she has the option to appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. The rules emphasize the importance of maintaining the Supreme Judicial Court’s constitutional authority as the final arbitrator of state law.
Cox has expressed concerns that the appeal process could undermine the intent of the new rules, suggesting it might revert to previous practices that lacked transparency. Critics argue that Maine’s system differs from those in other states, where judicial conduct committees, typically consisting of judges, attorneys, and public members, investigate ethics violations. These committees hold public hearings to assess the evidence and make recommendations for disciplinary actions.
The situation surrounding Justice Connors has heightened scrutiny of the state’s process for addressing ethical violations among its highest-ranking justices. Robert Cummins, a Maine attorney involved in drafting the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, has advocated for greater public and legal community involvement in such decisions. He remarked that the notion of judges exclusively judging their peers is fundamentally flawed.
With the new rules now in effect, the Supreme Judicial Court can move forward with its decision regarding Justice Connors and her involvement in the foreclosure cases in question. These cases, including Finch v. U.S. Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase Acquisition Corp v. Camille J. Moulton, resulted in decisions favoring banks and overturned previous precedents that had provided stronger protections for homeowners.
Justice Connors, who previously represented banks in foreclosure matters, faced questions about her potential conflicts of interest during her confirmation hearing in 2020. Despite the ethics committee’s advice that she need not recuse herself from the cases, the implications of her decisions continue to attract significant attention and debate within the Maine legal community.
Source: Portland Press Herald
