On Sunday, March 24, 2024, the Portland Press Herald reported that a complaint was filed against a Maine Supreme Court justice raising questions about judicial ethics.

According to the article, longtime foreclosure attorney Thomas Cox filed an unusual complaint against Associate Justice Catherine Connors in late January after she participated in deciding two significant mortgage cases – Finch v. U.S. Bank N.A. and J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. v. Moulton. Both cases eventually ruled in favor of the lenders. Cox believed Justice Connors should have recused herself from these cases.

Previously, Maine legal precedent established that banks could not sue borrowers for defaulting on loans a second time if the first case was dismissed due to an improper default notice. This precedent was upheld in two 2017 cases, Fannie Mae v. Deschaine and Pushard v. Bank of America. However, the recent decisions in Finch and Moulton overturned this precedent, upending what foreclosure attorneys and housing advocates saw as a critical safeguard for Maine homeowners.

Justice Connors, who was appointed to the state’s highest court in 2020, had represented the lenders in the 2017 cases. She worked on behalf of Bank of America in Pushard and co-authored an amicus brief for the Maine Bankers Association in Deschaine. Given her past involvement representing lenders in similar cases, Cox argued that Justice Connors should have recused herself from the recent mortgage cases that overturned the prior precedent in favor of lenders.

Cox pushed for transparency in the complaint process, requesting the complaint against Justice Connors be decided in public. However, in Maine’s judicial system, the recusal process and internal ethics proceedings are kept confidential unless the judge chooses to waive confidentiality or the disciplinary body votes to open the case. Cox believes the recent reversals will undermine mortgage law and benefit Justice Connors’ former clients.

Complaints against a Maine judge are reviewed by the Committee on Judicial Conduct. This committee meets a few times per year and only sees a few dozen cases annually. Most result in a finding of no violation and are closed without questioning the judge. If the committee pursues disciplinary action, all further proceedings become public. However, Cox argued the Maine Supreme Court justices should not decide the complaint against Justice Connors due to potential bias.

Some legal experts expressed concerns about Maine’s high level of secrecy in judicial misconduct proceedings, saying it can undermine public confidence in the system. States like New York are considering making more information public. Ultimately, the effects of overturning the prior mortgage precedent in Finch and Moulton could significantly impact foreclosure cases across Maine for years to come. Cox and others are pushing for more transparency in this unique complaint against a state Supreme Court justice.

 

 

Source: Portland Press Herald