Last week, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald’s resignation shocked New Hampshire’s legal world. Rather than challenge a slate of pending ethics charges, MacDonald acknowledged his role in an unusual $50,000 payout for one of his top aides.
The Judicial Conduct Committee, which enforces the state’s ethics code for judges, said MacDonald showed favoritism and failed to promote public confidence in the courts. In addition to its findings against MacDonald, the committee last week also released hundreds of pages it amassed during its review, including emails and text messages between the Supreme Court justices. The materials provide a rare look at the inner workings of a branch of government that largely operates outside of public view.
Here are three takeaways from the newly released records:
A misleading court statement crafted by a Republican lobbyist
In October of last year, NHPR published an investigation detailing how Dianne Martin, a top court administrator with longstanding ties to MacDonald, was removed from her state position and rehired into another job within the court system. The negotiated 48-hour gap between her two posts allowed her to cash out $50,000 in unused sick and vacation time — a benefit other state employees generally do not receive.
Before publication, NHPR reached out to the Judicial Branch for comment, but didn’t receive a substantive response.
Read our initial reporting: In midst of budget crisis, an unusual move helped ally of NH Chief Justice collect $50K
A week after the story was published, though, the Judicial Branch issued a statement to the Union Leader, which was also reporting on the personnel maneuver involving Martin. The court described Martin’s layoff as part of a pre-planned reorganization, and said that the move was made, in part, to lower costs.
The published statement was signed by MacDonald, as well as Justices Patrick Donovan, Melissa Countway and Bryan Gould, who had not yet been appointed to a seat on the Supreme Court at the time of the personnel moves.
The justices declared in their statement that “every personnel decision regarding Ms. Martin was made collectively by the Supreme Court.”
The explanation of Martin’s move, and the claim that it was planned as part of a reorganization, caught the attention of the Judicial Conduct Committee, according to the newly released documents. Concerned about the accuracy of the justices’ statement, the ethics board decided to open a confidential review into MacDonald and his role overseeing the personnel move last November.
During an inquiry that would stretch on for months, an investigator for the committee questioned MacDonald about the origins of the court’s public statement. Materials released last week show that a lobbyist with deep ties to the state’s Republican Party was hired to craft the statement, according to MacDonald. Periklis Karoutas, who was paid $10,000 a month for his work for the courts, then shared a draft of the statement with the justices. Another State House insider connected to the GOP, attorney Richard Lehmann, also took part in reviewing the statement.
MacDonald told investigators that a draft of the statement was finalized during a phone call that also included Judge Chris Keating, who was assigned to replace Martin.
“All those participants reviewed and approved the final version,” MacDonald said.
(Karoutas and Lehmann did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)
Rather than put the issue to rest, the statement became the genesis of the Judicial Conduct Committee’s investigation. In its summary released last week, the committee said it concluded that the press release “did not accurately portray the process for Martin's removal and rehire to a new position.”
It isn’t clear if the other justices who signed onto the misleading statement could also face discipline. An investigator from the Judicial Conduct Committee, however, did alert Countway and Donovan during their interviews that they, along with Gould, “had exposure under the rules” related to the court’s press release.
(Both Countway and Donovan were interviewed as part of the investigation, but the committee has declined NHPR’s request to release full transcripts of those interviews.)
MacDonald outnumbered
Before he became chief justice, MacDonald served as New Hampshire attorney general. During his time as the state’s top prosecutor, he promoted Dianne Martin, an attorney within the Department of Justice, to serve as his chief of staff.
Martin later followed MacDonald to the courts, where she served as top administrator of the state’s sprawling judicial system.
Her tenure in the position, though, did not go as planned. According to the newly released materials, in 2024, the courts hired Debra Weiss Ford, an attorney with expertise in employment law, to carry out an investigation into Martin following a complaint by an employee.
Less than a year later, the justices on the court again reached out to Ford, this time seeking her assistance in how to remove Martin from her job.
On Feb. 26, 2025, Justice Melissa Countway emailed Ford, informing her the justices had “made the difficult decision to terminate” Martin. That decision was based, Countway explained, on Martin’s management style, the loss of senior staff under her, “mishandling of bill payments, and a culture of fear and retaliation.”
This email, as well as others, were included among more than 600 pages of records and newly unsealed court documents gathered by the Judicial Conduct Committee.
A day later, Countway again emailed Ford, asking if instead of a termination, the court could offer Martin the opportunity to resign. That same evening, Feb. 27, MacDonald sent a text message to Justices Countway and Patrick Donovan, making one final plea on behalf of Martin.
“Patrick and Melissa, I recognize and accept that I am badly outnumbered,” MacDonald wrote to his peers.
MacDonald’s text, which was included among the Judicial Conduct Committee's records, went on to highlight what he considered Martin’s positive contributions to the court.
“I take real issue with showing her the door,” he wrote.
MacDonald said her removal, planned for the following day, would only heighten the court’s challenges. At the time, another justice — Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi — was herself facing criminal prosecution, for seeking to meddle in an investigation into her husband.
“Externally, this news will be received in this context and will likely engender less, not more, faith in us,” MacDonald said.
Nevertheless, the next day, a Friday, Countway and Donovan met with Martin and removed her from her position. She turned over her laptop and security badge, and was escorted out of the building.
That following Monday, MacDonald again expressed his frustration with his colleagues’ decision, according to the Judicial Conduct Committee’s records.
MacDonald was accused of slamming the door of Donovan’s chambers, yelling and using “profane language in anger.”
MacDonald rebutted some of the claims, including that he slammed the door, but acknowledged he did raise his voice at his colleague.
Countway, in her own written statement, denied that MacDonald raised his voice with her, and reported that he only used the phrase “stand down.”
MacDonald told the committee he later apologized to the justices for his behavior.
In the weeks following her initial removal, Martin hired her own personal attorney, and began negotiating the terms of her transition into another role at the courts. By the end of March, a deal had been reached: Martin would become the head of the Office of Bar Admissions, working remotely, and reporting directly to MacDonald. She was allowed to cash out her unused sick and vacation time — a benefit other state employees would generally not be afforded — netting her nearly $50,000.
Controlling the ‘narrative’
Last fall, following NHPR’s reporting on the payout to Martin, the New Hampshire Attorney General announced it would review the matter. Weeks later, prosecutors concluded that the court did not violate any criminal statutes.
Still, that didn’t put the issue to rest: during the legislative session, some New Hampshire lawmakers floated a measure that would give them powers to investigate MacDonald. That push fizzled out, however, and the bill was tabled.
Newly released records show that the Judicial Conduct Committee was eager to assure the public during this period that it, in fact, had already launched its own investigation into MacDonald.
Typically, the committee’s work is confidential until it announces a formal finding against a New Hampshire judge. The conduct committee can issue a brief public statement confirming an active investigation, but only if one of three conditions is met: the proceedings are already generally known to the public; there is broad public interest or speculation; or if public confidence in the courts may be threatened because of a lack of information.
When former Justice Hantz Marconi was charged with criminal violations in 2024, for example, the committee made a brief public announcement confirming it had opened an inquiry.
In February, the committee informed the justices that it thought it was also necessary to issue a public statement related to its review of the personnel maneuver. What followed were months of litigation — all previously sealed from public view — with the justices arguing that any announcement of an inquiry was unnecessary and would threaten public confidence in the legal system.
“Revealing the existence of an active inquiry by the JCC will stand only to create a sense of impending drama as the public waits for the conclusion of the investigation to be announced,” the justices argued in unsealed court records.
The justices said none of the requirements for issuing a statement were met, and that it would encourage “speculation.”
The Judicial Conduct Committee pushed back, arguing that the justices had already created public interest in the matter when they issued their own public statement in October.
“What they seek is to control the narrative — to allow their own public characterization of events to stand while preventing the JCC from issuing its own independent statement,” a lawyer for the committee said.
A specially assigned panel of judges, led by former Judge Tina Nadeau, ruled in the Supreme Court’s favor, blocking the committee from issuing a public statement before it completed its investigation.
In July, after a 10-month inquiry, the committee concluded that the chief justice had violated three sections of the ethics code. It prepared a formal statement of charges, and alerted MacDonald’s personal attorney that the probe was complete. But there was a new snag: Just days after learning that he was facing charges from the ethics board, MacDonald announced a sudden leave of absence from the court for medical reasons.
Unable to formally serve him a copy of the records, the committee again sought to issue a public statement, detailing its probe into MacDonald.
“What is at stake extends beyond this particular investigation to the fundamental legitimacy of the Committee itself, and to public confidence in the judicial branch's ability and willingness to police its own,” a lawyer for the committee argued in a legal brief in August.
By September, that fight over issuing a public statement would become moot: MacDonald agreed to resign from the bench, and accepted responsibility for his role in the ethical violations.
The state Supreme Court, now down to four justices, is scheduled to resume its oral arguments on Tuesday, following its traditional summer break.
