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

The recent recommendation that Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Catherine Connors be disciplined for ethics violations is not only unusual: Experts say it could set a precedent.

Connors is considered the first justice of Maine’s highest court to be recommended for sanctionsand the situation raises questions about how the Supreme Judicial Court, which oversees all judicial discipline, will handle the punishment of one of its own.

Connors is unlikely to receive more than a slap on the wrist, and she will keep her seat – Maine is one of six states that does not allow its Supreme Court to remove a judge for unethical conduct . Only the legislature can remove a judge.

But legal experts say whatever the outcome, the case raises questions about the complaints process, its protection of judges and how conflicts of interest should be handled on both sides of the bench.

The state Committee on Judicial Conduct said earlier this month that Connors violated Maine’s Code of Judicial Conduct by participating in two cases that overturned recent precedent and weakened protections for property owners who have struggling to make their mortgage payments.

Connors, a former attorney, has a long history of representing banks and has filed briefs representing banks and banking interests in precedent-setting cases.

Thomas A. Cox, a prominent Yarmouth foreclosure attorney, filed a lawsuit against Connors in January, arguing she had a conflict of interest.

The code of judicial ethics requires that a judge or justice of the peace recuse himself or herself if the judge’s impartiality in a matter could reasonably be doubted.

“Judge Connors’ failure to be sensitive to and recuse herself from the appearance of impropriety not only violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, but also undermines public confidence in the judiciary,” wrote John McArdle, counsel for the committee in the decision.

“INCARRATED TERRITORY”

It is rare for a judge to receive sanctions – or be recommended for such sanctions.

Complaints are filed all the time, said Dmitry Bam, associate dean and dean of the University of Maine School of Law, but most — nearly 99 percent — are dismissed either outright or after a brief review process. The fact that the complaint against Connors has gone this far “could set a precedent,” he said.

Since 1998, the Committee on Judicial Conduct has reviewed more than 1,000 complaints against judges at all levels of the courts, averaging between 30 and 60 new complaints each year. During this period, only nine cases – involving four judges – resulted in disciplinary measures.

Since 2007, the first data available, 26 complaints have been filed against judges of the Supreme Judicial Court, none of which have been forwarded.

Lower courts handle the vast majority of cases, so it’s often just a numbers game: fewer cases, less chance of wrongdoing, said David Sachar, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics National Center for State Courts. Additionally, judges have a wealth of experience at the time they are appointed. They’ve “been scrutinized throughout their careers and tend to avoid those kinds of pitfalls,” Sachar said.

Maine’s judicial complaint process is shrouded in secrecy: details are made public only if the judge requests it or the committee recommends disciplinary action, after which all proceedings are public.

Maine is in the minority. In 35 states, the judges’ information hearing is public. In 26 of them, the debates are public as soon as the charges are filed. Only four other courts – Delaware, Hawaii, North Carolina and Washington, D.C. – have proceedings more secret than those in Maine.

Ryan Williams, a criminology professor at the University of New England who has studied judicial behavior, said that nationwide, reviews of judicial conduct generally do not lead to disciplinary action.

“There are many cases where judges are given great leniency that an ordinary defendant would not receive,” he said. “Even when there is accountability, we see judges returning to the bench. »

In Maine, possible sanctions range from the proverbial slap on the wrist in the form of a public reprimand or censure. to suspensionbut no remand, according to the National Center for State Courts. Only the legislature can remove a judge, unlike most other states.

“This trend suggests that not having (a history of) these types of driving violations merits a lower sentence … but we’re kind of in uncharted territory in Maine,” Williams said. “This is a high-level position. These are extremely important cases. And that’s something that lawmakers and the public had their eyes on when she was confirmed.”

Connors could avoid punishment altogether. The committee’s recommendation is exactly that. It is up to the Supreme Judicial Court to decide whether there was misconduct and, if so, what happens next.

A JURY OF ITS PEERS

The process is the same at all levels of the court, so Connors’ fate will likely be determined by his fellow judges.

The American Bar Association recommends against doing so in its Model Rules for Implementing Judicial Disciplinary Actions.

“The highest court is a collegial body,” he wrote in a commentary on the rule. “Granting it the power to discipline its own members would create an appearance of impropriety and conflicts of interest. »

At least 15 states have rules that require Supreme Court disciplinary cases to be handled by judicial officers outside of the collegiate court, meaning that state officials create a replacement court by seniority, randomly or by post.

In Massachusetts, for example, the chief justice and six most senior judges on the appeals court would replace the Supreme Court in a case like Connors’.

In Maine, there is no set procedure, although a judicial branch spokeswoman said she expects the Supreme Judicial Court to issue an order outlining the plan soon.

Sachar said it’s likely the court will hear Connors’ case.

“If there is no obvious mechanism to replace recused judges, that appears to be exactly what is happening,” Sachar said.

This is a particularly sensitive issue given that Connors is accused of failing to withdraw from an affair. Now his fellow judges will face a similar test.

“The rule that Judge Connors violated requires the disqualification of a judge ‘in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality may be reasonably called into question,’” said Cox, the attorney who filed the complaint. “This same rule applies to the judges who must now finally determine whether a violation by their fellow judge, Justice Connors, is proven and, if so, what the sanction will be. It seems to me that the court’s judges are faced with a difficult decision on how to handle this case.

Connors was appointed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court by Gov. Janet Mills in 2020. All but one of the sitting justices were sworn in within a few years of each other and likely have close personal relationships, said Williams, professor at the UNE.

“These are justices who grew up together on the Supreme Court,” he said. “That doesn’t mean they can’t be impartial, but it certainly raises questions about the impartiality of the procedure and the decision.”

Bam, of the UMaine Law School, agreed that having members of the same collegiate tribunal decide could be problematic.

There are risks on both sides: a colleague trying to get revenge on another or the desire to protect one of his own, he said.

Bam advocated for an independent body to oversee matters of judicial ethics.

“In litigation, we have recognized that a good judicial process relies in part on the presence of an independent arbitrator,” he said. “We should take the lessons we learned from the legal process and apply them to legal and ethical issues (for the judiciary) as well.” »

Copy story link