A panel of five judges will decide if a justice on Maine’s highest court violated a code of conduct when she did not recuse herself from two cases.
The panel heard two hours of arguments Monday morning about whether Justice Catherine Connors violated Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct by not recusing herself from two foreclosure cases before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Before the two cases in question, Connors asked the Committee on Judicial Ethics if she needed to recuse herself and the chair of the advisory committee said the committee was unanimous in the opinion that she did not need to recuse herself.
Monday’s arguments are the culmination of more than a hundred pages of arguments, filed by the Judicial Conduct committee and Connors, about what, if any, punishment Connors should face.
The ethics complaint against Connors was filed by lawyer Tom Cox on Jan. 18, 2024. This is the first time a complaint has been made against a state supreme court justice.
Connors represented banks and filed briefs on their behalf as a lawyer in the years before Gov. Janet Mills appointed her to Maine’s top court in 2020. She ruled with the majority on two cases about foreclosure before the state’s highest court in January 2024.
A judge makes a decision about recusal on the test of if a reasonable person would question impartiality, the committee’s attorney John McArdle III, said.
“What we are saying is that she had a blind spot to the appearance of impropriety,” McArdle said.
There was no conflict of interest in the cases and there was no cause for recusal, Connors’ attorney James Bowie said. He said he could not find a single case in the United States where a lawyer’s participation in cases bars them from dealing with similar cases once they are a judge.
Publicity and public outcry can’t be a factor in a judge recusing themselves, Bowie said.
One of the cases essentially reversed a 2017 case with a 4-3 decision. Lenders are now allowed to seek foreclosures for entire payments even if they made mistakes about what borrowers owe in the default process. The high court decision found the lender made an error in how much an Oxford County woman owed but said a lower court will decide if she has to continue to pay or if she can have her home for essentially free.
“The law changed and a lot of people are going to be hurt by that,” McArdle said. “The law wouldn’t have changed if Justice Connors didn’t sit on the case.”
Without her vote the ruling would have been 3-3, meaning the law stayed the same as it was.
Connors not recusing herself just looks bad, McArdle said.
“It looks bad because the facts suggest the question: Can this judge be fair?” McArdle said.
The committee wants the panel to issue a reprimand against Connors, essentially saying that she did something wrong and she needs to be aware of similar issues in the future and to not do it again.
Connors made an appropriate decision and the panel should not issue any reprimands or sanctions, Bowie said.
A written decision will be issued in the coming months by the judges on the panel. They are Penobscot County Superior Court Judge Ann Murray, District Court Judge Charles Dow and active retired judges Barbara Raimondi, William Stokes and Patricia Worth.