The final written arguments have been filed in the ongoing case concerning whether one of Maine’s highest judges should have recused herself from two oral arguments.
Justice Catherine Connors violated Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct by not recusing herself from two foreclosure cases before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the Committee on Judicial Conduct wrote in a 10-page report in December.
The committee and Connors have filed more than a hundred pages of arguments about what, if any, punishment Connors should face. The committee’s brief filed Wednesday marks the last filing before oral arguments in front of a panel of six Maine judges. This is the first time a complaint has been made against a supreme court justice.
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.
The opinion from the ethics committee was made with limited information that didn’t capture the scope of the issues, because Connors didn’t “appreciate the appearance of conflict, and therefore she did not include all of the pertinent facts,” the committee said in its response.
That made the informal opinion inadequate, the committee said.
It is the “perception of the average and reasonable person,” not the opinion from the ethics committee, that must be considered, the committee said. Under the Maine Judicial Code of Conduct, a judge should recuse themselves “in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” It says if a reasonable person who knows all the facts would question a judge’s ability to be impartial, the judge should excuse themselves from the case.
The complaint after the ruling in the case and the opinion saying a public reprimand is needed is “dangerous,” Connors’ lawyer said in a brief. However, it was incumbent for her to consider the circumstances of the case and potential outcome because of her previous representation of banking interests and the chance to overturn a case that she had previously lost, the committee said.
The ethics complaint against Connors was filed by lawyer Tom Cox on Jan. 18, 2024.
Connors ruled with the majority on two cases about foreclosure before the state’s highest court in January 2024. She 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 spent 30 years as a lawyer with a firm that had a relationship with Maine Bankers Association. During that time, she represented mortgage owners and servicers in cases before the supreme court.
If Connors had recused herself, the rulings would have stayed in favor of homeowners, the committee said. Instead, the rulings went in favor of the banks. Those decisions will likely establish precedent for people in Maine who may face foreclosure in the future, the brief said.
Oral arguments before a panel of six judges have not yet been scheduled.