New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald has stepped down from the state’s highest bench, concluding his judicial career through a negotiated settlement that resolves a comprehensive Judicial Conduct Commission investigation into his administrative actions and conduct. The resignation brings an abrupt conclusion to the 64-year-old jurist's tenure at the helm of the state judiciary, taking effect immediately after an ethics inquiry that spanned nearly a year.
The formal departure follows MacDonald’s submission of a resignation letter to Governor Kelly Ayotte, coming seven weeks after he initially stepped away from his judicial duties on an announced medical leave. Under the terms of the disciplinary agreement, MacDonald acknowledged committing violations of three separate provisions of the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct, leading to the immediate surrender of his judicial seat and chief justice title.
Addressing the resolution publicly through his legal counsel, MacDonald expressed regret regarding the administrative controversies that led to the commission’s disciplinary review. He stated that he took full ownership of his deficiencies regarding the handling of a judicial branch personnel matter, emphasizing that stepping down was essential to spare the court system and its personnel from the disruption and spectacle associated with an extended public hearing.
The remaining four associate justices on the Supreme Court announced that the settlement agreement was formally ratified by an independent panel of assigned judges. To ensure impartiality, no sitting high court justices participated in the review. The special panel that sanctioned the agreement was composed of retired Superior Court Justice Tina Nadeau alongside four active superior court judges.
At the epicenter of the Judicial Conduct Commission's probe was an intricate and controversial personnel maneuver orchestrated for Dianne Martin, who had formerly served as MacDonald’s chief of staff during his tenure as the state’s attorney general. Investigative findings released alongside the settlement revealed that the chief justice had directed an irregular administrative trajectory that allowed Martin to transition between high-paying positions within the court apparatus while receiving substantial financial benefits.
Martin had previously occupied the role of administrative director within the Office of the Courts, drawing an annual salary of $143,800. Although she was relieved of her operational responsibilities on February 28, she was retained on the court payroll under paid leave status until her official layoff took effect on April 1. In total, the staffing arrangement granted Martin nearly $50,000 in accumulated leave and related compensation packages.
Shortly after her departure from the administrative post, Martin was appointed on April 4 to serve as general counsel for the Office of Bar Admissions, an entity overseen directly by the Supreme Court that manages the credentialing and licensing reviews for attorneys throughout New Hampshire. The new legal counsel position carried an elevated compensation package of $154,000 per year, representing a notable promotion following her administrative separation.
The internal mechanics of the staffing decision were brought to light through testimony provided by a court whistleblower who was interviewed by investigators working under Attorney General John Formella. The whistleblower disclosed that Christopher Keating, who was brought in to replace Martin as the chief administrator of the court system, explicitly asserted that the personnel adjustments were being carried out under the direct orders of the chief justice.
According to the whistleblower’s account, Keating instructed staff to execute the transition directives without deviation, stating that the mandates originated directly from MacDonald. The whistleblower subsequently reported being terminated by Keating just one month before reaching the end of a standard six-month probationary term, alleging that Keating justified the dismissal by labeling her conduct unprofessional and describing her as a disgrace to the department.
Records and earlier reporting revealed that the other Supreme Court associate justices who were serving on the bench during the restructuring acknowledged participating jointly with MacDonald in managing the administrative transitions regarding both Martin and Keating. However, documents released by ethics officials underscored that MacDonald exhibited intense personal volatility behind closed doors regarding Martin's removal from the administrative office.
A formal communication issued by the Judicial Conduct Commission in March outlined serious allegations regarding MacDonald’s interpersonal conduct with fellow members of the bench. The commission documented an episode on Monday, March 3, 2025, during which MacDonald reacted with fury over the initiative to dismiss Martin, allegedly entering the chambers of Associate Justice Patrick Donovan, slamming the office door shut, and shouting at his colleague using aggressive and profane language.
Ethics investigators further established that MacDonald engaged in a similar heated and profanity-laced confrontation later that same afternoon with Associate Justice Melissa Countway. The regulatory commission noted in its findings that these combative encounters were not isolated occurrences, citing previous instances during MacDonald’s judicial leadership where he lost his temper and utilized profanity toward other judicial officers.
The regulatory documents also disclosed that rumors had emerged within the court system alleging that MacDonald and Martin shared a romantic involvement. In his formal written responses submitted to the commission, MacDonald directly refuted the assertions, stating that he immediately reported the rumors to the judicial branch's general counsel to confirm they were entirely untrue, while additionally speaking with each associate justice one-on-one to dismiss the claims.
Reflecting on the overarching disciplinary matter, MacDonald characterized the circumstances as both complex and rapidly evolving, reiterating his desire that the state court system move forward without ongoing turmoil. With the settlement concluded and the bench reorganized, the judiciary aims to restore operational focus and maintain the integrity of New Hampshire's legal institutions.
(0)