Maine Justice Catherine Connors Violated Code of Judicial Conduct by Not Recusing in Foreclosure Cases, Panel Says

On Wednesday, September 10, 2025, Bangor Daily News reported that a state committee has recommended a public reprimand for Justice Catherine Connors, a sitting judge on Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court, asserting it is necessary to reinforce awareness among judges regarding the appearance of impropriety.

The Committee on Judicial Conduct stated in a 10-page report from December that Justice Connors violated Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct by not recusing herself from two foreclosure cases that came before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

A panel of six Maine judges is now tasked with determining the repercussions, if any, that Connors will face. This marks the first instance of a complaint against a Supreme Court justice in Maine.

The committee submitted a 45-page brief on August 27, outlining the reasons for its belief that the justice should receive a public reprimand. The document was made available on the state court’s website on Wednesday following an inquiry from the Bangor Daily News.

Justice Connors has until September 26 to file a response, according to her attorney, Jim Bowie, who stated she has no comment at this time. The committee’s brief emphasizes that Justice Connors’ continued failure to acknowledge her violation of the judicial code of conduct and breach of public trust should be a significant factor in determining the appropriate sanction.

The ethics complaint against Connors was initially filed by lawyer Tom Cox on January 18, 2024. The cases in question involved Connors’ ruling with the majority in two foreclosure cases before the state’s highest court in January 2024. Prior to her appointment to Maine’s top court by Gov. Janet Mills in 2020, Connors represented banks and filed briefs on their behalf as a lawyer.

Connors spent 30 years as a lawyer with a firm that maintained a relationship with the Maine Bankers Association. During that period, she represented mortgage owners and servicers in cases before the Supreme Court. The committee contends that had Connors recused herself, the rulings would have remained in favor of the homeowners. Instead, the rulings favored the banks, decisions that are likely to set a precedent for future foreclosure cases in Maine.

Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct stipulates that a judge should recuse themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The code specifies that if a reasonable person, aware of all the facts, would question a judge’s ability to be impartial, the judge should excuse themselves from the case.

The committee’s brief argues that while the public may grudgingly accept politicians not keeping campaign promises as “just politics,” justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court are held to the highest standards of ethical behavior, both within and outside the court. The committee believes that a public reprimand would encourage other judges to be more sensitive to the appearance of impropriety in the future.

During her confirmation hearing before the Legislature, Connors stated she would recuse herself from cases related to her time as a lawyer, a practice she maintained during her first two years on the bench, a point of agreement between the committee and Connors. The brief emphasizes that a judge should err on the side of caution when considering recusal. The standard is not whether Connors believed she could be fair, but whether a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would reasonably question her impartiality.

The committee’s brief asserts that it should have been self-evident to Connors that an appearance of impropriety existed. Connors chose to participate in one case before seeking guidance from the Judicial Advisory Committee on Maine’s Ethics and continued with the second after receiving that guidance. According to an email included in the December report, the Judicial Ethics Committee advised Connors that they did not believe she needed to recuse herself.

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. The committee’s brief states that 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.