On Friday, December 20, 2024, Bangor Daily News reported that a judge of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Justice Catherine Connors, should be publicly reprimanded for failing to recuse herself from two foreclosure cases. This recommendation came from the state’s Committee on Judicial Conduct, which outlined its findings in a detailed 10-page report.

The committee’s report marks the first formal complaint lodged against a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. The complaint was initially filed by attorney Thomas Cox on January 19, highlighting concerns about Connors’ impartiality in the cases she presided over.

Justice Connors has not provided any immediate comments regarding the allegations. A spokesperson for the Judicial Branch, Barbara Cardone, indicated that the branch would refrain from discussing the ongoing matter outside of any official orders that might be issued by the Supreme Judicial Court concerning Connors.

The timeline for the next steps in this case remains uncertain. In January, Connors was part of the majority ruling on two significant foreclosure cases before the state’s highest court. The report stated that she was aware her decisions could have broader implications, potentially affecting hundreds or thousands of Maine homeowners facing foreclosure in the future.

Prior to her appointment to the Supreme Judicial Court by Governor Janet Mills in 2020, Connors had a lengthy legal career spanning 30 years, during which she represented banking interests. She worked with a law firm that had ties to the Maine Bankers Association and was involved in cases concerning mortgage owners and servicers, which raised questions about her ability to remain impartial in the current cases.

According to the Maine Judicial Code of Conduct, judges are required to recuse themselves from proceedings where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned. The committee’s report concluded that a reasonable member of the public would indeed question Connors’ objectivity based on her past associations with banking institutions.

The report also indicated that Connors participated in one of the cases before seeking guidance from the Maine Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. After receiving advice, she continued with the second case despite the committee’s opinion that she did not need to step back from the proceedings.

One of the cases in which Connors voted was Finch v. U.S. Bank, which resulted in a 4-3 decision favoring the bank. This ruling overturned a previous decision deemed settled by a 2017 case. The Finch case allows lenders to pursue foreclosures for full payments, even if there were errors regarding the amounts owed by borrowers during the default process.

The committee’s report recommended that Connors’ public reprimand should emphasize the importance of transparency for judicial candidates, particularly during confirmation hearings. It suggested that candidates should be forthright about any potential conflicts of interest to maintain the integrity and public trust in Maine’s judiciary.

Furthermore, the report proposed that a panel of judges from the state’s superior courts should adjudicate Connors’ case. To avoid any potential bias or perception of impropriety, it advised that these judges should not have participated in the ethics committee’s decision. Alternatively, the case could be handled by a panel of judges from outside Maine.

Typically, if the complaint is deemed serious enough, the judicial committee refers the case to the Supreme Judicial Court, which holds the authority to impose formal disciplinary actions.

Justice Connors, a graduate of the Northeastern University School of Law, previously worked at the Portland-based law firm Pierce Atwood before her elevation to the Supreme Judicial Court.

 

 

Source: Bangor Daily News