Home Based Business

The Committee on Judicial Conduct is recommending disciplinary action against Catherine Connors, an associate justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The committee, which supervises the judiciary in Maine, says that Connors violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by not recusing herself from two foreclosure cases.”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,” John McArdle, counsel to the Committee on Judicial Conduct, wrote in the committee’s final report sent to the Supreme Judicial Court.According to the report, Connors worked as an attorney representing banks and banking interests, including foreclosure matters in Maine, before being confirmed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.While serving on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Connors participated in two foreclosure cases, Finch v. U.S. Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase Acquisition Group v. Camille J. Moulton.Connors had written to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee asking if she should recuse herself from the cases, and at the time, the ethics committee determined she did not need to.However, the Committee on Judicial Conduct detailed in its final report that Connors was required to consider whether her impartiality might be questioned from the perspective of a reasonable person, and “nowhere in the decision of the Ethics Committee is the term or concept of the appearance of a conflict addressed.”Connors did continue to sit on both cases and in the Finch decision, she voted for the bank’s position.”The Finch decision overturned the Pushard and Deschaine decisions, which was a victory for the banks and a loss for the homeowners,” McArdle said in the report. “Notably, the Pushard decision that was overturned was the same case that Justice Connors had lost on appeal when she was an attorney.” “Home ownership and foreclosure actions are serious matters and of concern to Mainers,” he continued. “Justice Connors’ lack of sensitivity to the appearance of impropriety should have been, but apparently was not, self-evident. A member of the public informed of the surrounding facts and circumstances of Justice Connors’ representation of banking interests would reasonably question her impartiality before and during the time that she chose to participate in the Finch and Moulton appeals. Thus, Justice Connors violated Canon 2, Rule 2.11 (A) and the public outcry concerning her participation in the appeals is proof that a reasonable person not only could, but would, question her impartiality under the circumstances.”Thomas Cox is the attorney who filed a complaint against Connors and wrote to the committee alleging she violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.”The Committee was thorough and careful in its review of the facts that I presented in my complaint and is clear in its conclusion, that a violation occurred,” Cox said in a statement to Maine’s Total Coverage. “I am thankful to the Committee for its careful and thoughtful work on what I am sure was a difficult and uncomfortable issue.”Connors was unable to comment on the pending case as it’s being considered by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.