On Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Bangor Daily News reported that the Committee on Judicial Conduct has again recommended that Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Catherine Connors be reprimanded. This recommendation stems from a case concerning Connors’ decision not to recuse herself from two oral arguments before the state’s highest court.
The central issue revolves around whether Justice Connors should have excused herself from cases involving foreclosure matters, given her prior representation of banking interests. Before her appointment to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court by Gov. Janet Mills in 2020, Connors spent 30 years as a lawyer with a firm that maintained a relationship with the Maine Bankers Association. During that time, she represented mortgage owners and servicers in cases before the supreme court.
In January 2024, Connors participated in two cases about foreclosure before the state’s highest court and ultimately ruled with the majority. The committee noted that she had previously represented banks and filed briefs on their behalf.
Prior to the two cases in question, Connors sought guidance from the Committee on Judicial Ethics regarding the need for recusal. The chair of the advisory committee initially advised that recusal was not necessary, an opinion the Committee on Judicial Conduct later deemed inadequate. The committee argued that the initial opinion was based on limited information, as Connors reportedly did not fully disclose all pertinent facts, failing to “appreciate the appearance of conflict.”
The Committee on Judicial Conduct emphasized that the standard for recusal is based on the “perception of the average and reasonable person,” rather than the opinion of the ethics committee. According to the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should recuse themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The committee posited that a reasonable person, aware of all the facts, would question Connors’ ability to remain impartial in these cases.
The committee further stated that Connors should have considered the circumstances of the case, the potential outcome, and her previous representation of banking interests, including the possibility of overturning a case she had previously lost.
The complaint against Connors was initially filed by lawyer Tom Cox on January 18, 2024. The committee argued that had Connors recused herself, the rulings would have favored the homeowners. Instead, the rulings favored the banks, decisions that are likely to establish precedent for future foreclosure cases in Maine.
Connors’ lawyer, in a brief, argued that the complaint and the recommendation for a public reprimand are “dangerous.”
The final written arguments, comprising more than a hundred pages, have been filed, marking the last filing before oral arguments in front of a panel of six Maine judges. Oral arguments before the panel have not yet been scheduled. This case marks the first time a complaint has been made against a supreme court justice in Maine.
Source: Bangor Daily News
