We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Catherine Connors should be reprimanded for failing to recuse herself in two recent foreclosure cases despite a possible conflict of interest, a judicial review panel has recommended.

The state’s Committee on Judicial Conduct said a review has determined that Connors, a former private practice attorney whose previous clients included large banks, should be sanctioned for violating the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct by participating in a pair of major foreclosure cases earlier this year.

“Sensitivity to the appearance of a conflict and/or the appearance of impropriety is of great importance required of all judges,” John McArdle, the committee’s counsel, wrote in the 10-page report. “Justice Connors’ failure to be sensitive to the appearance of impropriety and recuse herself in the face of it, not only violates the Judicial Code of Conduct but it undermines public confidence in the judiciary.”

The report, which marks the first time that a state Supreme Court justice has been recommended for discipline, stems from a complaint filed in January by Yarmouth-based foreclosure attorney Thomas A. Cox, alleging that Connors should have recused herself from the recent foreclosure cases that ultimately went in favor of the lenders.

In those cases — Finch v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 5-2, and J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. v. Moulton — the court ruled 4-3 in the lender’s favor. The impact of those rulings also upended Maine’s foreclosure laws, which had previously prohibited banks from suing borrowers for defaulting on their loans more than once if the first case was dismissed.

Cox argued in the complaint that the high court’s reversal of those cases undermines the states’ mortgage laws and will enrich Connors’ former clients. He pointed to federal case law and judicial standards, holding that judges should recuse themselves from cases if a “reasonable person” believes they shouldn’t preside over them.

The judicial panel sided with Cox’s arguments, noting in its report that the code of judicial conduct requires a judge to recuse themselves if the judge’s impartiality in a case might be reasonably questioned, whether or not they believe they can be impartial.

“Unfortunately, despite overwhelming information that could, and would, cause a reasonable person to question her impartiality, Justice Connors chose to actively participate in the Finch and Moulton before even seeking any outside guidance,” McArdle wrote in the report. “Then, after she was informed that she did not have to recuse, she consciously chose not to recuse despite the appearance of impropriety which should have been self-evident.”

The panel recommended that Connors be sanctioned by a group of Superior Court judges or out-of-state judges rather than her colleagues on the state Supreme Court, which could create another conflict of interest.