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

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

Connors is believed to be the first justice on Maine’s highest court recommended for sanctionsand the situation raises questions about how the Supreme Court of Justice, which oversees all judicial discipline, will handle penalizing one of them.

Connors is unlikely to get more than a slap on the wrist, and she will keep her seat — Maine is one of six states that does not allow the supreme court to remove a judge for unethical behavior. Only the Legislature can dismiss a judge.

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

The state Board of Judicial Conduct said earlier this month that Connors violated the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct 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 briefs representing banks and banking interests in precedent-setting cases.

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

The Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge or judiciary to recuse themselves if the judge’s impartiality in a case can reasonably be doubted.

“Justice Connors’ failure to be sensitive to and recuse himself from the appearance of impropriety not only violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, but undermines public confidence in the judicial system,” wrote John McArdle, counsel for the commission. the decision.

“UNCARRIED TERRITORY”

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

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

Since 1998, the Judicial Conduct Commission has reviewed more than 1,000 complaints against judges at all levels of the court, with an average of 30 to 60 new complaints each year. In that time, only nine cases—involving four judges—have resulted in disciplinary action.

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

Lower courts handle the vast majority of cases, so often it’s simply a numbers game — fewer cases, less chance of wrongdoing, said David Sachar, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics for the National Courts Center state. In addition, judges have a wealth of experience by the time they are appointed. They “have been vetted throughout their careers and tend to avoid these types of pitfalls,” Sachar said.

Maine’s judicial complaint process is shrouded in secrecy — details become public only if requested by a judge or if the board recommends discipline, after which all proceedings are public.

Maine is in the minority. In 35 states, the fact-finding hearing for judges is public. In 26 of these, proceedings are public as soon as charges are filed. Only four other courts—Delaware, Hawaii, North Carolina, and Washington, DC—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 across the country, judicial behavior reviews typically do not lead to discipline.

“There are many cases of judges who are given a lot of leniency that the average defendant is not given,” he said. “Even when there is accountability, we see judges going back to the bench.”

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

“The model would suggest that not having a (history) of these types of conduct violations merits a lesser sentence … but we’re kind of in uncharted territory in Maine,” Williams said. “This is a high-profile position. These are incredibly important cases. And that’s something that MPs and the public had their eyes on when she was confirmed.”

Connors could avoid punishment altogether. The commission’s recommendation is just that. It is up to the Supreme Court of Justice to decide whether there has been misconduct 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 determined by her fellow judges.

The American Bar Association advises against this in its Model Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement.

“The highest court is a collegial body,” he wrote in a comment to the rule. “Granting the authority to discipline its own members would create the appearance of impropriety and conflicts of interest.”

At least 15 states have rules requiring Supreme Court justice discipline cases to be handled by judicial officers outside the collegiate court, meaning state officials create a surrogate court based on seniority, randomness or position .

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

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

Sachar said it was likely the court would hear Connors’ case.

“If there is no obvious mechanism to replace impeached judges, then it appears that this may be exactly what is happening,” Sachar said.

It’s a particularly sticky question given that Connors is accused of failing to recuse himself from a case. Now his fellow judges will face a similar test.

“The rule that Judge Connors violated warrants recusal of a judge ‘in any proceeding where the impartiality of the judge may be called into question,'” said Cox, the attorney who filed the complaint. “The same rule applies to judges who must finally determine whether a violation by their colleagues, Judge Connors, is proven and, if so, what the penalty will be. It seems to me that the judges in the court are faced with a difficult decision as to how to deal with this matter now.”

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

“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 proceedings and the decision.”

Bam, of the UMaine law school, agreed that having members of the same collegiate court decide could be problematic.

There are risks on both ends — one colleague trying to get back at another or wanting to protect one of them, he said.

Bam advocated for an independent body to oversee judicial ethics issues.

“In litigation, we accepted that part of a good judicial process is to have an independent arbitrator,” he said. “We should take the lessons we’ve learned from the legal process and apply them to legal and ethical issues (for justice).

Copy the story link