Maine Supreme Court Justice Catherine Connors speaks during testimony in a session at Lewiston High School on Oct. 10. Derek Davis/Staff Photographer

Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) finds itself with a thorny dilemma on its hands at the start of the New Year.

For the first time ever, one of its own members, Associate Justice Catherine Connors, has been recommended for discipline by the Committee on Judicial Conduct after failing to recuse herself for an important foreclosure case in which she cast the deciding vote.

Though the issues surrounding recusal — opting out of case under consideration — are murky, leaving much to the discretion of the individual judge, the case itself is strikingly clear.

Before joining the court in 2020 as Gov. Janet Mills’s first SJC nominee, Connors was a partner with Pierce Atwood, the Portland law firm. She argued and lost a case before the law court in 2017 that established a notably strict standard for how banks must present foreclosure documents.

Basically, the court found that errors in such documents — such as misstating the amount owed the bank — invalidated the proceeding, essentially ending any need for repayment of the mortgage.

The decision diverged from the business-friendly jurisprudence now practiced most notably by the U.S. Supreme Court, but Pushard v. Bank of America established a clear state precedent.

Advertisement

That precedent was swept away in two foreclosure cases in 2024, including one — Finch v. U.S. Bank — where Connors was the deciding vote. This 4-3 decision relieved banks from the standards established in Pushard.

Having argued the case that established the 2017 precedent, Connors checked with the Advisory Committee on Legal Ethics, which said she did not have to recuse because because she hadn’t represented either plaintiff.

Still, recusal was the better option. During Connors’ confirmation hearing before the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, responding to pointed questioning, she said she would “err on the side of recusal” in foreclosure cases.

Like most states, Maine ethics laws forbid not only a direct conflict of interest, but the “appearance” of conflict.

That’s what the Committee on Judicial Conduct determined. Given her foreclosure work for banks, it found, the public “would reasonably question her impartiality.”

Asked by the SJC to recommend a specific sanction, it opted for a reprimand — the lightest punishment.

Advertisement

Here we enter uncharted territory. Since it was formed as a judicial branch committee in 1978, Judicial Conduct has recommended discipline only 17 times, and never for a member of the SJC.

As Maine’s highest court, the SJC now faces the uncomfortable task of potentially sanctioning one of its own members. To avoid this additional dilemma, some court observers suggest a panel of Superior Court trial judges be convened, or a group of out-of-state appeals court justices.

There are pros and cons to any approach, and the decision will not be easy. Still, there is a legal process — very unlike the ethics crisis engulfing the nation’s highest court.

The U.S. Supreme Court enforces a code of ethics on all federal lower court judges, but has no effective code of conduct itself; a document produced recently by Chief Justice John Roberts commits the court to nothing.

Two current associate justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, may well have violated the code’s mandates all other judges must abide by: Thomas for numerous unreported gifts perhaps amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Alito through similar gifts and by telegraphing his views on Trump v. U.S, which earlier this year relieved President-elect Trump from any legal accountability for his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

It’s been suggested that Maine’s elected officials, starting with Gov. Janet Mills, have some responsibility to influence the Connors case, but that’s incorrect. However untested, there is a prescribed legal remedy, and we can be reasonably sure the SJC will see it through.

Advertisement

There are no such rules for the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether the justices intended to or not, they have placed themselves above the law by ignoring numerous and plausible complaints about the conduct of its members.

During the Biden administration, there was talk of congressional court reform, including limiting the court’s jurisdiction, changing the nomination process, and requiring the court to produce an enforceable ethics code — though the latter move could produce a separation-of-powers clash.

With an incoming Republican Congress, any such action seems unlikely, but the problem remains.

The authority of courts, state and federal, depends on retaining the public’s trust — those subject to the edicts and verdicts of the legal system. When trust erodes, it’s a great deal different than holding another election where voters can try to determine their future.

The U.S. Supreme Court is under a dark cloud of its own making, and has only itself to blame.

Join the Conversation

Please sign into your CentralMaine.com account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe. Questions? Please see our FAQs.

filed under: