On Monday, September 29, 2025, Bangor Daily News reported that the potential reprimand of a judge on Maine’s highest court could pose a threat to judicial independence, according to the justice’s attorney in a recent court filing. Justice Catherine Connors is facing scrutiny for allegedly violating Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to recuse herself from two foreclosure cases that were presented before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
The Committee on Judicial Conduct released a 10-page report in December, asserting that Connors should have stepped aside from the cases due to a perceived conflict of interest. However, Connors’ attorney, James Bowie, contends in a 48-page filing submitted Friday that the committee’s findings lack legal merit and unfairly target the justice, who has consistently strived to adhere to ethical guidelines.
This situation marks a significant moment, as it is the first instance of a complaint being lodged against a justice on the state’s supreme court. A panel of six judges will ultimately determine what, if any, disciplinary actions Connors will face. Bowie argued that the committee’s interpretation of ethical standards is “dangerous” as it could distort public understanding of judicial roles and suggests that judges may be penalized for their voting patterns.
The committee has recommended that Connors receive a public reprimand, stating that it should have been evident to her that her involvement in these cases created an appearance of impropriety.
The complaint against Connors was initiated by attorney Tom Cox on January 18, 2024, following her participation in rulings favoring banks in January 2024. Prior to her appointment to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in 2020 by Governor Janet Mills, Connors had a lengthy legal career, including representing banks in foreclosure matters.
Bowie emphasized that the unpopularity of a judicial opinion cannot retroactively determine whether an ethical violation occurred at the time a judge made a recusal decision. He stressed that allowing such perceptions to influence judicial conduct threatens the principle of judicial independence.
The Maine Judicial Code of Conduct mandates that a judge must recuse themselves in situations where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. Connors had previously stated during her confirmation hearings that she would recuse herself from cases linked to her past legal work, a practice she followed for the first two years of her tenure. However, she indicated that the number of recusals became burdensome for her fellow justices.
Before the two contested cases, Connors sought guidance from the Committee on Judicial Ethics regarding her potential recusal, receiving a unanimous opinion that it was unnecessary. The filing further argued that the committee’s approach permits dissatisfied litigants to challenge a judge’s ethics after a ruling, undermining judicial finality.
The Committee on Judicial Conduct has until October 10 to respond to Connors’ filing. Subsequently, the panel is expected to schedule an oral argument. Should the panel find Connors in violation of the ethics rules, she has requested a comprehensive opinion to clarify when recusal is required in future cases, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for judges across Maine.
Source: Bangor Daily News
