On Feb. 28, Dianne Martin was summoned to a meeting with two New Hampshire Supreme Court justices. The fallout from that meeting — as laid out in a series of newly released documents — reveals dissension, disagreement, and strain within the highest level of the state’s judiciary.
At the time of the February meeting, Martin was the Judicial Branch’s top administrator, overseeing its accounting, human resources and security teams. She believed the meeting with the justices was about finding ways to lighten the workload for Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, who had hired Martin to her position and worked closely with her for years.
Instead, the justices — Melissa Countway and Patrick Donovan — informed Martin that her position was being eliminated, effective immediately.
Martin “was completely shocked by this notification,” she would later tell an investigator. Donovan collected Martin's computer, work phone, and security pass, and she was escorted out of the building.
Within weeks, though, Martin found herself with a new job in the courts, along with a payout of nearly $50,000, a result of her cashing out her accrued sick and vacation time. That’s despite policies which typically prohibit state employees who transition between jobs from receiving any accrued benefits.
This series of events, outlined in 180 pages of newly released materials, offers more details about the inner workings of the Judicial Branch and its handling of a top official. The records describe a period of confusion and differing versions of events, including Martin’s shifting employment status and what role the chief justice played in the matter.
After NHPR first reported on Martin’s payout in October, the New Hampshire Department of Justice launched an inquiry, which ultimately cleared the Judicial Branch of any criminal wrongdoing in its payments to Martin. Investigators did conclude that the judiciary had failed to follow its own personnel rules.
Here are key takeaways from the newly released materials.
Martin was offered but initially declined a new job — until the court offered her a bigger salary
Investigators from the Department of Justice met with Martin and her attorney in mid-November as part of their review. According to a six-page summary of that meeting, Martin said that she had struggled under the stress of her work, and had taken a leave of absence in late 2024. Upon returning to her job, she was offered a flexible schedule. She described noticing a new dynamic within the court’s administrative teams that she said “felt different.”
“She believed Chief Justice MacDonald was annoyed as the workplace was chaotic, describing the justices as not agreeing with or communicating with each other and not being on the same page regarding the administration of the court,” Martin told investigators.
As an example, Martin described a diversity, equity and inclusion project for the courts MacDonald launched in 2022 as a source of tension. In late February, Martin told investigators she asked MacDonald how she should expense DEI-related project work, and was told in a text message by the chief justice to instead shut down the initiative altogether.
Soon afterwards, according to Martin’s statement to investigators, she was called into the meeting with Justices Countway and Donovan, who informed her she would no longer hold the director position. Instead, in that meeting, the justices offered Martin a different job overseeing the state’s bar admissions.
According to the investigator’s notes, “During this meeting, Martin did point out that there was a process in the Judicial Branch policies regarding layoffs. After discussion about this process, Justice Donovan commented to Martin words to the effect of ‘other people had to do parts of your job.’ ”
Martin told investigators she initially refused the bar admissions position, as it paid less and felt to her like a demotion. Countway informed Martin that “their meeting was not a negotiation.” Donovan then collected Martin’s work computer, phone and security badge, before Countway walked her to the exit.
“She left this meeting under the impression the termination of her employment was effective that day,” investigators wrote.
In a statement to NHPR Friday, Martin said she had no advanced knowledge of the changes in her employment, and that the experience caused her trauma, “which deeply affected my family and me.”
She also said NHPR’s reporting on the matter has "compounded that exponentially.”
Martin’s outreach to the chief justice
The following Monday, according to the state’s investigative notes, Martin wrote an email to Chief Justice MacDonald, along with Erin Creegan, who was at the time serving as general counsel for the Judicial Branch.
According to Martin, MacDonald responded by praising her work and requested she consider taking the position leading the Office of Bar Admissions.
Through her personal attorney, Martin then began “negotiating” with the Judicial Branch regarding her “termination/lay off.” That included whether or not Martin should receive a monetary payout or accept a different position within the courts.
Judge Christopher Keating, who had been assigned to replace Martin as head of the Administrative Office of the Courts, would tell investigators that in mid-March “he was asked to look into Dianne Martin being laid off and rehired.” Keating didn’t specify to investigators who asked him to do that.
Martin told investigators she never threatened to sue the court to keep her job. In a statement to NHPR Friday, she reiterated that: “I cannot speak to any perceived ‘threat’ of litigation by the branch arising from what occurred. I did not threaten litigation.”
But according to a summary of his interview with Attorney General John Formella and other attorneys at the Department of Justice, Keating said that there “may have been an implicit threat but not an explicit threat of litigation from Martin involving her removal as Director of the [Administrative Office of the Courts].”
During these negotiations, the court drafted multiple versions of a job offer letter for Martin, with Keating serving as an intermediary between MacDonald and a human resources manager, according to the newly released records. Keating said there were several drafts before the offer letter was ultimately sent to Martin.
The judiciary rehired Martin to the bar admissions position, but at a higher salary than was initially offered, and with stipulations that she could work remotely and report directly to MacDonald.
The newly released records show that there was confusion within the Judicial Branch about Martin’s status during this period. Human resources staff were unclear how to proceed with her employment, the documents show.
Between her dismissal on Feb. 28 and her rehiring, Martin remained on administrative leave and collected her full salary until April 1. She was then laid off for two days, and began in her new role on April 4, leading the bar admissions office. As a result of that two-day gap in employment, she received nearly $50,000 in accrued benefits, including unused sick and vacation time.
Justices were not questioned about personnel moves
The Department of Justice’s investigation into Martin’s personnel maneuvers lasted approximately four weeks. During that time, the new materials shared with NHPR show investigators conducted interviews with Martin and Judge Keating. Investigators did not, however, attempt to interview any Supreme Court justices — the very people who oversaw Martin’s employment and her move from job to job within the court system.
Jessica King, general counsel for the Judicial Branch, said in a statement to NHPR Friday that “the Department of Justice did not request emails, notes, or other materials from the justices.”
“As the individual responsible for communications with the Department of Justice on behalf of the Judicial Branch, I can confirm that the Branch cooperated fully with the review and provided the Department with access to requested records," King said.
So far, the justices have issued a single public statement on the matter, in late October.
“Every personnel decision regarding Ms. Martin was made collectively by the Supreme Court,” the justices wrote. They said that following a lengthy review of how to best streamline court operations, the “Supreme Court decided to eliminate the position previously held by Ms. Martin.”
State personnel staff say they were 'out of the loop' on Martin moves
In an interview with investigators, two top state personnel employees said they were not consulted about Martin’s employment changes and were kept “out of the loop” during her negotiations and appointment to her new role.
That’s despite an agreement between the Judicial Branch and the state Division of Personnel in 2024 to handle some of its human resource matters.
Matthew Mavrogeorge, the director of the state personnel division, along with Joanne Lydick, a manager within the division, told investigators that their office “had nothing to do with the ‘back story’ of what led to Martin’s transfer from one position into another position” at the courts. Mavrogeorge and Lydick told investigators they were led to believe that the judicial branch had created a new position for Martin, and they had no role in her rehiring.
In their October statement, however, the justices described Martin’s job change as part of a judicial branch restructuring, not the creation of a new position.
They also said Martin’s payout was “in accordance with standard personnel policies” and was reviewed by state personnel staff.
In his interview with investigators, Mavrogeorge described it differently: He told investigators that his office did not play a role in determining Martin’s payout.
He said the justices’ statement “goes against his understanding of the situation.”
Locally produced, locally powered
Behind the headlines you read on our website, there’s a dedicated team of journalists working hard to bring you local news you can trust. On any given day, that can look like:
- • Reporters hustling to track down sources, get the facts and hold powerful officials accountable
- • Producers coordinating interviews with people who offer perspectives that go beyond soundbites
- • Editors carefully vetting our stories to make sure they’re accurate, fair and easy to follow
I believe that journalists, when we do our jobs well, can play a crucial role in connecting people and making communities stronger. But we can’t do this work without you.
Your donations, in any amount, can help keep independent journalism vibrant in New Hampshire — and accessible to everyone, no paywall required.
Sincerely,
Dan Barrick
News Director
