On Thursday, October 31, 2024, the Portland Press Herald reported that Justice Catherine Connors of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court may become the first justice in the state to face disciplinary action for ethical violations. The recommendation for sanctions, issued by the state’s Committee on Judicial Conduct, marks a rare instance of a sitting justice being scrutinized for their conduct.
The Committee concluded that Justice Connors violated the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct by participating in two significant cases that not only overturned established legal precedents but also weakened protections for homeowners struggling to make mortgage payments. Connors, who has a background as an attorney representing banking interests, has been accused of having a conflict of interest in these proceedings. A formal complaint was initiated against her earlier this year by Thomas A. Cox, a foreclosure attorney based in Yarmouth.
The judicial conduct code mandates that a judge must withdraw from cases where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned. The committee’s decision emphasized that Connors’ actions not only contravened this code but also jeopardized public trust in the judicial system. John McArdle, legal counsel for the committee, articulated concerns that Connors’ failure to recognize the appearance of impropriety compromised the integrity of the judiciary.
Historically, judges in Maine face significant hurdles in terms of accountability. Sanctioning a judge is an uncommon occurrence; the vast majority of complaints—approximately 99%—are dismissed without further action. Since the Committee on Judicial Conduct was established in 1998, only nine cases involving four judges have resulted in disciplinary measures. No complaints against justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court have progressed to the level of recommendation for sanctions until now.
Maine’s judicial complaint process is notably opaque, with details remaining confidential unless a judge requests public disclosure or if the committee recommends disciplinary action. This shroud of secrecy places Maine among a minority of states that maintain such a non-transparent process, with only a few others having similarly restrictive policies.
Legal experts, including Dmitry Bam, vice dean and provost at the University of Maine School of Law, suggest that the case against Connors could set a significant precedent. He noted that the case’s progress to this stage is rare and may indicate a shift in how judicial misconduct complaints are handled in the state.
The range of potential sanctions Connors could face varies from a public reprimand to suspension, but removal from the bench is not an option in Maine. The state’s legislature holds exclusive authority to remove judges, a departure from practices in many other states. As a result, it’s anticipated that Connors will likely retain her position, even if disciplinary action is taken.
The process for determining Connors’ fate rests with her fellow justices on the Supreme Judicial Court. This raises questions about potential conflicts of interest, as the American Bar Association’s guidelines advise against the highest court adjudicating disciplinary cases involving its own members. In several other states, such matters are handled by judicial officers not affiliated with the court to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Connors was appointed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court by Governor Janet Mills in 2020. The dynamics within the court could complicate the disciplinary process, given that many justices have developed close professional relationships since their appointments. This proximity raises concerns about the impartiality of their deliberations regarding Connors’ alleged ethical violations.
The Supreme Judicial Court is expected to outline its process for addressing the committee’s recommendation, though no formal procedure exists at this time for replacing justices in disciplinary matters. Observers have noted that the lack of a clear mechanism for recusal could complicate the court’s ability to impartially evaluate the allegations against Connors.
As the situation unfolds, the potential implications for judicial accountability in Maine remain significant. The scrutiny of Connors’ actions and the response from her peers could influence the future handling of similar complaints against judges in the state.
Source: Portland Press Herald
