Supreme Judicial Court Justice Did Not Violate Ethics Rules - Says SJC

Justice Connors (via maine.gov)

A judge on Maine's highest court did not break ethics rules by deliberating on a mortgage case while previously representing mortgage-providing banks before being appointed.

Catherine R. Connors, an associate justice on Maine's Supreme Judicial Court, was an appellate lawyer and partner for the Portland law firm Pierce Atwood, having argued more than a hundred cases, before being nominated directly to the court. Normally judges serve in district or superior courts before being elevated. Justice Connors' former clients included banks and lobbyists such as the Maine Bankers Association and the National Mortgage Bankers Association.

She then decided on a case that reversed an earlier one in which she had lost - to the detriment of mortgage providers. The parties were different but the issue was the same.

The fact that a member of the Maine high court had to face a disciplinary proceeding was so unusual, new rules had to be created to apply.

During her time in private practice she argued to the Supreme Judicial Court as a representative of Bank of America in a case called Pushard that changed notice requirements for mortgagees to the disadvantage of mortgage providers and preventing new court actions on the basis of a legal principle, She also challenged that decision in another case, filing a 'friend of the court' brief on behalf of the lobbying organizations.

However, she then sat as a justice on the cases Finch  and Moulton that challenged the Pushard decision that she had opposed as an attorney representing banking clients. The same lobbying organization that she had represented, Maine Bankers, also filed a 'friend of the court' brief in one of the new cases. Justice Connors then asked the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee if she should recuse herself because of that issue and it told her they did not believe she should.

Then, she voted with the majority in Finch to overturn the Pushard decision to decide the issue as she had advocated as a lawyer.

An attorney, Thomas Cox, then wrote to the Committee on Judicial Conduct alleging a violation of the code of judicial conduct (specifically Rule 2.11(A)) by failing to recuse herself from the pending appeals. Two reports then followed for the committee to consider what action to take. The second recommended that Justice Connors be issued with a pubic reprimand for the appearance of impropriety.

In a published opinion released on Thursday February 26, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court said none of the attorneys involved in the cases pending with Justice Connors raised any issue with her impartiality.

Despite her previous representation of banks and banking interests, the Court said she had not made "any pubic statements that committed or appeared to commit her to rule a certain way in the proceedings." It also said she was aware of the relevant rule and took steps to get advice on whether she needed to recuse herself. There were also parts of the rule that did not apply to her situation, according to the Court.

The Court ultimately dismissed the report's recommendation of a public reprimand and said the Committee had failed to meet its burden of proof, deciding that no violation of the rule had even occurred.

Two active retired judges wrote a concurrence concluding that she did, in fact, violate the code of judicial conduct. They agreed with the outcome, that the report be dismissed, but felt that no disciplinary action was warranted - in other words, the same outcome but for a different reason.