On Thursday, January 2, 2025, Maine editor, columnist, and reporter Douglas Rooks published an article discussing a pressing issue involving the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). Rooks highlighted that for the first time in its history, a member of the court, Associate Justice Catherine Connors, has been recommended for disciplinary action by the Committee on Judicial Conduct due to her failure to recuse herself from a pivotal foreclosure case in which she cast the deciding vote.

Rooks noted that the matter of recusal—where a judge opts out of a case for potential conflicts of interest—has historically been complex and largely subjective. However, the particulars of Connors’ situation are particularly straightforward. Before her appointment to the court in 2020 by Governor Janet Mills, Connors was a partner at Pierce Atwood, a Portland law firm. In 2017, she represented a case that established strict standards for banks concerning the presentation of foreclosure documents, ruling that errors in such documents could invalidate foreclosure proceedings.

This precedent, established in Pushard v. Bank of America, was overturned in two foreclosure cases in 2024, including Finch v. U.S. Bank, where Connors was the deciding vote. The ruling in Finch eased the obligations on banks that had been set by the earlier decision. Although Connors sought guidance from the Advisory Committee on Legal Ethics, which advised her that recusal was not necessary since she did not represent either party, the Committee on Judicial Conduct found that her prior work raised legitimate questions about her impartiality.

During her confirmation hearing, Connors indicated a willingness to “err on the side of recusal” in foreclosure cases, underscoring the ethical considerations at play. Maine ethics laws prohibit not only direct conflicts of interest but also any appearance of impropriety, which ultimately influenced the Committee’s decision regarding Connors’ participation in the Finch case.

The Committee on Judicial Conduct has rarely recommended disciplinary measures, having done so only 17 times since its establishment in 1978, with no cases involving SJC members. As the state’s highest court, the SJC now faces the daunting task of potentially sanctioning one of its own justices. To address this unprecedented situation, some court observers have suggested involving a panel of Superior Court judges or out-of-state appellate justices.

Rooks contrasted Maine’s ethical framework with the challenges facing the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a code of ethics for federal judges but lacks a robust self-enforced ethical standard. Recent controversies surrounding Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have raised significant ethical concerns, as both have faced scrutiny over unreported gifts and questionable conduct.

The article also mentioned ongoing discussions about potential reforms for the U.S. Supreme Court, including the need for an enforceable ethics code. In contrast, Maine’s situation illustrates a more defined process for addressing judicial misconduct. While the outcome of Connors’ case remains uncertain, Rooks emphasized that the SJC is expected to adhere to established legal procedures, reinforcing the importance of judicial ethics in the state.

 

 

Source: The Times Record