A Maine Superior Court judge could be the first in the state to be sanctioned

A recent recommendation that Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Catherine Connors be disciplined for ethics violations isn’t just unusual — experts say it could set a precedent.

Connors is believed to have become the first Maine Supreme Court Justice recommended for sanctionsand this situation raises the question of how the Supreme Judicial Court, which oversees all judicial discipline, will handle the punishment of one of its own.

Connors is unlikely to get more than a slap on the wrist and keep her seat — Maine is one of six states that does not allow its high court to remove a judge for unethical conduct. Only the legislature can dismiss a judge.

But legal experts say that regardless of the outcome, the case raises questions about the grievance process, the protection of judges and how conflicts of interest should be handled on both sides of the court.

Earlier this month, the state Judiciary Committee said Connors violated the Maine Judiciary Code by participating in two cases that overturned recent precedent and weakened protections for homeowners struggling to make mortgage payments.

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

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

The Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge or judges to recuse themselves if the judge’s impartiality in a case may reasonably be questioned.

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

“UNKNOWN TERRITORY”

It is unusual for any judge to receive sanctions – or be recommended for them.

According to Dmytro Bam, associate dean and provost of the University of Maine School of Law, complaints are filed all the time, but most — about 99 percent — are dismissed immediately or after a brief review. That the complaint against Connors went this far “could set a precedent,” he said.

Since 1998, the Judicial Conduct Committee has handled more than 1,000 complaints against judges at all levels of courts, with an average of 30 to 60 new complaints each year. During this time, only nine cases – involving four judges – led to disciplinary responsibility.

Since 2007, according to the earliest available data, 26 complaints have been filed against Supreme Court judges, none of which have been transferred.

Lower courts hear the vast majority of cases, so it’s often just a numbers game — fewer cases, less chance of wrongdoing, said David Sahar, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts. In addition, by the time of appointment, judges have a wealth of experience. “They’ve been vetted throughout their careers and are keen to avoid these pitfalls,” Sahar said.

Maine’s judicial appeals process is shrouded in secrecy, with details only made public at the request of a judge or if a committee recommends disciplinary action, after which all proceedings become public.

Maine is in the minority. In 35 states, fact-finding hearings are open to judges. In 26 of them, the proceedings are open and charges are pending. Only four other courts — Delaware, Hawaii, North Carolina and Washington, D.C. — have more secretive processes than Maine.

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

“There are many cases where judges are given leniency that would not be given to an ordinary defendant,” he said. “Even when there’s accountability, we see judges going back to the bench.”

In Maine, possible sanctions range from the well-known slap on the wrist to a public reprimand or censure to the suspensionbut not removal, according to the National Center for State Courts. Only the legislature can remove a judge, unlike in most other states.

“This pattern suggests that not having (a history of) similar misconduct merits a lesser sentence … but we’re kind of in uncharted territory in Maine,” Williams said. “This is a high position. These are incredibly important matters. And that’s what lawmakers and the public paid attention to when it was approved.”

Connors could have avoided punishment altogether. The committee’s recommendation is exactly that. The High Court decides whether there has been a breach and, if so, what happens next.

A JURY OF HER PEERS

The process is the same at all levels of the court, so Connors’ fate will likely be decided by her colleagues.

The American Bar Association recommends against it in its Model Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Action.

“The higher court is a collegial body,” says the commentary to the norm. “Giving it the power to discipline its own members would create the appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest.”

At least 15 states have rules that require disciplinary cases in the supreme court to be heard by judicial officers outside the collegiate court, meaning that state officials create a substitute court based on seniority, random, or ex officio.

In Massachusetts, for example, the chief justice and the six highest-ranking appeals court justices would serve in place of the high court in a case like Connors.

Maine has no set procedure, though a judicial branch official said he expects the Supreme Judicial Court to issue an order outlining the plan soon.

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

“If there is no obvious mechanism to replace removed judges, then that seems to be what will happen,” Sahar said.

It’s a particularly difficult question given that Connors has been accused of failing to recuse herself from the case. Now her fellow judges will face a similar test.

The rule that Judge Connors violated requires a judge to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned,” said Cox, the attorney who filed the complaint. “The same rule applies to the judges, who must now ultimately determine whether their colleague, Justice Connors, has been found guilty and, if so, what the sanction will be. It seems to me that the judges in the court are faced with a difficult decision as to how to resolve this case now.”

In 2020, Governor Janet Mills appointed Connors to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. All but one of the six justices were sworn in a few years apart and likely have close personal relationships, said Williams, the UNE professor.

“These are judges 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 proceedings and the decision.”

Behm, of Maine Law School, agreed that a decision by members of one collegiate court could be problematic.

According to him, there are risks from both sides: a colleague tries to take revenge on another or the desire to protect his own.

Behm advocated for an independent body to oversee issues of judicial ethics.

“We recognized during the trial that part of a good trial is to have an independent arbitrator,” he said. “We have to take the lessons we learned from the trial and apply them to the legal and ethical issues (for the judiciary) as well.”

Copy the story link