Gordon MacDonald, chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, has resigned after acknowledging violations of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct, the Judicial Branch said Tuesday.
Resignation ends ethics probe
The resignation—signed Sept. 8 and announced publicly on Tuesday—concludes an investigation carried out by the independent New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Conduct. The probe began last year after a New Hampshire Public Radio report into the employment actions involving a longtime court aide, Dianne Martin.
MacDonald had been on medical leave since July 24, at which time the court's other four justices assumed his administrative responsibilities. The Judicial Branch released a statement saying it remains focused on its duties and ensuring uninterrupted court operations.
"I accept responsibility and accountability for my conduct," MacDonald wrote in his resignation letter to Gov. Kelly Ayotte, adding that his resignation "is in the best interests of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch."
What he admitted
According to the agreement posted by the committee, MacDonald admitted to violating provisions requiring judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The admission related in part to how the court handled the employment status of Dianne Martin—who was laid off and then rehired days later to a different position, resulting in a payout described in reporting as nearly $50,000. The agreement also cited failures to exercise impartiality in administrative appointment powers.
The committee’s action brought the formal investigation to a close once the signed resignation was filed, the Judicial Branch said.
Background and context
MacDonald, a former New Hampshire attorney general, was sworn in as chief justice in March 2021. He was notable as the first New Hampshire Supreme Court chief justice in decades who had not previously served as a judge. His appointment followed an earlier rejection by the state Executive Council when it was controlled by Democrats; that rejection occurred roughly two years before his swearing-in.
The case that triggered the committee investigation began with reporting that Martin had been laid off from a court position and was rehired days later in a different role, receiving what was reported as a substantial payout. That reporting prompted the committee to open an inquiry into whether judicial conduct rules had been violated.
Immediate implications for the court
With MacDonald’s resignation, the court’s remaining four justices had already been fulfilling his administrative duties since late July. The Judicial Branch emphasized continuity of operations and public access to the courts.
- Administrative continuity: Other justices assumed administrative responsibilities while MacDonald was on leave.
- Investigation closed: The committee’s probe ended once the resignation agreement was signed.
- Public accountability: MacDonald’s written acceptance of responsibility was included in his resignation letter to the governor.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Last year | Committee on Judicial Conduct opened investigation following NHPR report about Dianne Martin's employment and payout |
| July 24 | MacDonald placed on medical leave; other justices assume administrative duties |
| Sept. 8 | Resignation letter signed by MacDonald |
| Sept. 16 | Judicial Branch announces resignation and posts agreement admitting Code of Judicial Conduct violations |
What officials have said
The Judicial Branch issued a brief statement underscoring that court work would continue without interruption. In his resignation letter to Gov. Kelly Ayotte, MacDonald said stepping down was the best move for the judicial system and accepted responsibility for his actions.
The committee’s public posting of the signed agreement provides the factual basis for the conclusion that MacDonald violated rules designed to preserve judicial impartiality and public confidence in the courts.
As the state’s highest court transitions administrative leadership, the remaining justices will continue overseeing court business. The outcome of the committee’s inquiry—resolved by the resignation agreement—closes this chapter of the review, but the circumstances that prompted the scrutiny remain a subject of public and institutional concern.
Further developments related to any administrative appointments or additional statements from state officials may be expected as the Judicial Branch implements the transition.
