Elected leaders are pushing for greater transparency and accountability to rebuild public trust in the state’s judicial system after an ethics inquiry led to the resignation of New Hampshire’s highest judge.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald resigned earlier this month. A trove of internal documents, including emails and text messages, released by the Judicial Conduct Committee revealed that MacDonald exercised favoritism and bypassed merit-based hiring practices to hire a longtime ally.
In light of the committee’s findings, Executive Councilor John Stephen, a Republican, said the state needs a more “public-involved” oversight and review process.
“There is no review process once you become a judge. I think that needs to be reviewed in New Hampshire,” Stephen said in an interview.
Some states have addressed this gap through retention elections, a public review where voters decide whether incumbent judges should remain in office for another term.
None of the New England states hold retention elections for judges. In New Hampshire, justices serve until they reach the state’s mandatory retirement age of 70.
“Not saying that that’s the process that we need to have in New Hampshire,” said Stephen. “There needs to be a lot of dialog so that the public is involved, and there’s full transparency, and there’s confidence in our judicial system.”
MacDonald had a personal friendship with Dianne Martin, who worked with him since 2017 when they were both employed by the state Department of Justice. MacDonald, in his response to the Committee’s complaint, rebuffed rumors that Martin was his girlfriend.
Martin was hired as director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the court system’s top administrative position, in November 2021, eight months after MacDonald was sworn in as a New Hampshire Supreme Court justice.
She was laid off from the job last spring and rehired three days later as general counsel. That short lapse enabled a $50,000 payout of unused sick and vacation time from her prior role, as first reported by NHPR.
In February 2025, Justice Melissa Countway conveyed serious concerns about Martin’s tenure to Debra Weiss Ford, an employment attorney hired by the court.
In her email, Countway said Martin’s “management style, mass departures of long-term career employees, mishandling of bill payments, and a culture of fear and retaliation” led to the court’s decision to terminate her.
When the justices voted to terminate Martin, MacDonald opposed their decision.
In a text to Justices Patrick Donovan and Countway, he wrote: “I take real issue with showing her the door. It will be highly and unnecessarily embarrassing as well as disruptive, particularly for those close to her.”
Martin was laid off on April 1, 2025. Three days later, on April 4, 2025, she was rehired to a different position within the judicial branch.
MacDonald resigned earlier this month after the ethics investigation was made public.
Justices obstruct investigation
In October 2025, the Supreme Court issued a press release claiming all personnel decisions regarding Martin were made “collectively” and represented part of a “routine administrative reorganization.”
This explanation triggered the Judicial Conduct Committee to open a formal investigation. The committee said that the press release did not “accurately portray the process for Martin’s removal and rehire to a new position.”
The internal investigation documents show that justices moved quickly to limit the investigation.
Richard Lehman, representing the justices, filed an emergency request with the Judicial Conduct Committee for a protective order preventing the members from making “public or private” statements that could reveal the committee had opened an inquiry.
The committee appointed attorney Philip Waystack to conduct the preliminary investigation. Waystack filed an objection to the request.
Then, the justices filed a motion to disqualify Waystack from the case entirely.
Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill, a Democrat, said these maneuvers to stifle investigations and thwart public accountability were “outrageous.” Hill said that the justices had failed to fulfill their obligation to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings and had instead attempted to obstruct them.
“I think that warrants investigation, but at a minimum, what I’m requesting right now, it requires that the JCC issue a public statement about whether these justices are being subject to an investigation right now, and what the status of that investigation is,” Hill said. “I think it is untenable to have three sitting Supreme Court justices who are under this cloud, sitting on cases, hearing oral arguments, and making and issuing orders in matters before the Supreme Court right now.”
The documents also accuse MacDonald of losing his temper and behaving badly towards his colleagues.
After Martin was told of her termination on March 3, 2025, she emailed MacDonald, and he expressed his frustrations.
“You entered Justice Donovan’s chambers, reportedly slamming the office door. It is also reported that you yelled at Justice Donovan, using profane language in anger. Later that day you engaged in a similar behavior in a heated exchange with Justice Countway,” the Committee’s letter to MacDonald states. “This was not the first time in your tenure that you yelled and used profanity in anger toward a judicial officer.”
Since MacDonald’s resignation, the court has been conducting its proceedings with the other four justices and expecting Gov. Kelly Ayotte to appoint a new justice to replace him.
Evaluating judges
Rep. Bob Lynn, a Republican lawmaker, preceded MacDonald as chief supreme court justice.
Lynn said he is against the idea of judges facing elections but that he was “very saddened” by MacDonald’s situation.
“If you have term limits and a judge is kind of getting close to the end of the term when they’re up for reappointment, you know there’s much more incentive for a judge to handle a controversial case in a way that he or she thinks is politically advantageous to their getting reappointed,” Lynn said.
Lynn said he plans to propose a bill that would make performance evaluation of judges more robust.
At present, judges are evaluated through questionnaires sent to jurors, witnesses, attorneys, court personnel, parties and others who have appeared before the judge.
Lynn acknowledged that not everyone responds to evaluation questionnaires and said that many of those who do file responses are people with an “axe to grind” — often litigants who lost cases decided by the judge in question.
Rather than eliminating the questionnaires, Lynn said he would propose expanding their scope. He suggested establishing a more comprehensive evaluation system in which retired or supervisory judges would observe courtrooms and assess how judges manage their dockets, participate in teaching activities, assist with court administration and contribute in other areas.
The JCC’s months-long investigation remained largely confidential until its findings were released earlier this month. MacDonald went on medical leave on July 24, and the details of his leave were not made available to the public.
Stephen said he understands that an investigation into the other justices is ongoing and that he has confidence in the Judicial Conduct Committee. But once the investigation is complete, he said, the details should be fully disclosed so the public and lawmakers can determine whether there are policy issues the Legislature needs to address.
“Transparency should always be the overriding factor in all government work that applies to everything. I’m a big believer in the right to know,” he said. “I, as a councillor, would ask for, to the extent possible, full transparency, and to make sure that whatever is done ensures the public trust in the judiciary.”
