On Thursday, October 24, 2024, the Portland Press Herald reported that a judicial review committee recommended sanctions against a justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for ethical violations. Justice Catherine Connors is accused of failing to recuse herself from significant foreclosure cases that presented a conflict of interest, according to the state’s Committee on Judicial Conduct.

The committee’s findings indicate that Justice Connors participated in two cases that not only overturned established legal precedent but also diminished protections for homeowners struggling with mortgage payments. The committee emphasized that Connors, who has a background as an attorney representing banking interests, violated the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct by not stepping aside in these cases.

The controversy began when Thomas A. Cox, a foreclosure attorney based in Yarmouth, filed a complaint against Connors in January 2024. Cox argued that her involvement in the cases raised legitimate concerns about her impartiality. The committee, which conducts its proceedings in private, issued its decision on October 11, 2024.

According to the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are required to recuse themselves in situations where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The standard for determining whether this is the case is objective and does not take into account the judge’s personal beliefs about their own impartiality.

John A. McArdle, counsel for the ethics committee, expressed concern over Connors’ apparent insensitivity to the appearance of impropriety, noting that her actions could undermine public trust in the judiciary. McArdle highlighted the importance of judges being aware of how their decisions affect not only the parties involved in a case but also the broader community.

The issues at the center of the recommendation relate to several foreclosure cases in Maine. In order to foreclose on a property, lenders must send a notice of default detailing the amounts owed and how borrowers can rectify their payments. The law mandates strict requirements for these notices, and any errors could invalidate a bank’s foreclosure case.

Significant rulings in prior cases, such as Pushard v. Bank of America and Federal National Mortgage Association v. Deschaine, established that defective notices could render mortgages unenforceable, allowing borrowers to retain their homes. However, in January 2024, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, with a majority of new justices including Connors, ruled in Finch v. U.S. Bank, N.A., that lenders who fail to meet notice requirements do not automatically lose their right to enforce the mortgage. This decision effectively overturned the precedent set in the earlier Pushard case.

In a second case in January, J.P. Morgan Chase Acquisition Corp v. Camille J. Moulton, Connors again sided with the bank, further raising questions about her impartiality. Connors had previously represented banking institutions in key cases and filed briefs in favor of their positions.

During her confirmation hearing in 2020, Connors stated that she anticipated needing to recuse herself from significant foreclosure cases and indicated that she would err on the side of recusal when uncertainty arose. In 2022, following a formal request from Jeffrey Evangelos, a former state representative, Connors was again urged to recuse herself from the Moulton case. After the complaint was filed by Cox, Evangelos expressed his disappointment, stating that Connors had breached his trust.

The ethics committee noted that public concern regarding Connors’ participation in the cases demonstrated that a reasonable person might question her impartiality. Despite having participated in oral arguments for the Finch case, Connors later sought advice from the Maine Judicial Ethics Committee regarding her recusal. The committee advised her that recusal was not necessary, as the cases were deemed separate from those in which she had previously participated.

The recommendation from the committee does not guarantee disciplinary action against Connors. Much of the process surrounding judicial complaints remains confidential, with details becoming public only if the committee formally reports a judge to the Supreme Judicial Court, which has the final authority on any misconduct findings.

Historically, it is uncommon for judges in Maine to face disciplinary actions. Recent cases have highlighted this rarity; for instance, in September, Judge William Blaisdell was suspended after failing to pay taxes and withholding child support. From 2016 to 2022, the Judicial Conduct Committee forwarded only eight complaints against six judges to the Supreme Judicial Court, dismissing nearly 650 others during the same period.

 

 

Source: Portland Press Herald