On Monday, December 15, 2025, CentralMaine.com reported that a panel of Maine judges is currently deliberating whether to issue a public reprimand to Associate Justice Catherine Connors of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The reprimand is being considered following accusations of judicial misconduct brought forth by the state’s Committee on Judicial Conduct.

The central issue revolves around Connors’ decision not to recuse herself from two significant foreclosure cases in 2024. These cases resulted in the overturning of established legal precedent that had previously protected homeowners who had not been properly notified of their loan defaults.

Prior to her appointment to the bench, Connors worked as a private attorney representing banks and various banking interests. Critically, she was involved in cases that ultimately led to the very precedent-setting decisions that she later participated in overturning as a justice.

The Committee on Judicial Conduct alleges that Connors violated state judicial rules by failing to recuse herself from cases where a “reasonable person” might perceive a personal conflict of interest. In one of the 2024 Supreme Court decisions, which Connors joined, the court was divided in a 4-3 split.

During oral arguments on Monday, John McArdle III, representing the Committee on Judicial Conduct, emphasized the potential impact of Connors’ participation, stating that the change in law resulting from these cases would negatively affect many individuals. He argued that without Connors’ involvement, the previous legal precedent would have remained unchanged due to a 3-3 tie.

McArdle also noted the historical significance of this case, marking the first instance in the committee’s 47-year history that it has sought disciplinary action against a member of the state’s highest court. The committee’s investigation was initiated following a complaint filed against Connors in January 2024 by a foreclosure attorney.

After the judicial conduct committee filed its official request, Connors’ peers on the high court stated in June that they could not consider her case because of newly established rules that require an independent panel of judges for complaints involving the supreme court. Consequently, a panel comprising judges from both District and Superior courts was formed to hear the arguments on Monday. A decision timeline has not been established.

James Bowie, Connors’ attorney, argued that the justice had no obligation to recuse herself. He stated that Connors had consulted an advisory committee of the court and received an opinion that it was permissible for her to consider the case. Bowie asserted that there was no actual or perceived conflict of interest. He further pointed out that none of the attorneys involved in the 2024 cases, from either side, had requested Connors to recuse herself.

McArdle countered that Connors had not provided the advisory committee with all necessary information when seeking guidance on recusal. He also claimed that Connors had committed to recusing herself from such cases during a confirmation hearing with state lawmakers in 2020.

The two sides presented conflicting accounts of whether Connors’ promise to recuse herself applied only to her initial years as a justice or to her entire tenure on the court. McArdle clarified that the committee was not alleging bias on Connors’ part but rather focusing on the appearance of bias, which the rules of conduct aim to prevent.

 

 

Source: CentralMaine.com