NH Chief Justice Resigns After Admitting Misconduct

A Layoff, a Rehire, and a $50,000 Payout

MacDonald became Chief Justice in March 2021 after four years as New Hampshire’s attorney general. His path to the post was not smooth: the Executive Council rejected his first nomination in 2019 and confirmed him only on renomination, leaving the seat vacant for about a year and a half. The conduct that ended his tenure involved Dianne Martin, who had been his chief of staff in the attorney general’s office and whom the judicial branch hired in 2021 as director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.

In April 2025, with the judicial branch under a hiring freeze and MacDonald publicly warning of layoffs driven by budget cuts, Martin was laid off from that director position and rehired a few days later as general counsel for the Office of Bar Admission. Being laid off entitled her to a payout of unused vacation, sick leave, and other benefits totaling nearly $50,000. She also started the new job several months before her predecessor retired, which meant two people were being paid for the same position at the same time.

New Hampshire Public Radio reported the arrangement in October 2025. The state attorney general’s office reviewed it and concluded in late November 2025 that prosecutors were unlikely to find actionable criminal conduct, so no criminal investigation followed, though the office did find the judicial branch had not followed human resources best practices. The Judicial Conduct Committee, an eleven-member body that handles discipline for New Hampshire judges, opened its own inquiry in mid-November 2025, in part because of concerns about the accuracy of a public statement the Supreme Court itself had issued about the matter that October. In that statement, three associate justices joined MacDonald in saying the personnel decisions about Martin had been made by the court collectively rather than by any one justice.

MacDonald went on medical leave on July 24, 2026, without public explanation; the four associate justices took over his administrative responsibilities. On September 8, 2026, he signed a stipulation and agreement with the Judicial Conduct Committee in Case No. JC-25-079-C, which recites that the committee had been investigating the Martin personnel matter since mid-November 2025 and had exchanged views with his counsel about the quality and quantity of the evidence it had gathered. In it, MacDonald admitted three specific violations. Under Canon 1, Rule 1.2, he failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Under Canon 2, Rule 2.5(A), he failed to perform his administrative duties competently and diligently in how Martin’s removal and reappointment were characterized, processed, and publicly explained, including by bypassing established judicial branch rules to give her a position without the competitive, merit-based process required of every other judicial branch employee. And under Canon 2, Rule 2.13(A), he failed to exercise his power of administrative appointment impartially and on the basis of merit, and failed to avoid favoritism.

The rest of the agreement is worth reading closely, because it shows what a negotiated exit looks like. MacDonald waived his right to a public hearing on the committee’s Statement of Formal Charges, and separately waived any right to a new hearing before the Supreme Court. He agreed that the committee would enter a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that he violated all three rules. He agreed to reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for the committee’s attorney’s fees and expenses across the investigation, charging, and prosecution of his case, and not to seek payment of his own lawyers from the judicial branch’s default fund. And he agreed to resign both as Chief Justice and as a Supreme Court justice once a specially assigned panel of justices approved the deal. That panel did not include any of the sitting associate justices, who learned of the approval the morning it was announced.

Resigning Instead of Contesting

The alternative to the agreement was a public disciplinary hearing on the committee’s ethics charges. MacDonald chose not to go through one. The committee’s own summary report explained why it accepted a resignation rather than pressing for a lesser sanction: it concluded that letting MacDonald keep his judicial commission, even under suspension, would conflict with the constitutional principles at stake, and that ensuring he would no longer hold a position of public trust was its paramount concern. In his resignation letter to Governor Kelly Ayotte, he wrote that he believed resigning was in the best interests of the judicial branch and that he accepted responsibility and accountability for his conduct, adding that he hoped the branch could move forward without further distraction. Ayotte has said she will consult a judicial selection commission before nominating a replacement. The Supreme Court continues to operate in the meantime.

The resignation landed during an unusually turbulent stretch for New Hampshire’s high court. Separately from the Martin matter, MacDonald had faced scrutiny over conflicting accounts involving former Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, who said she had consulted him before meeting with the governor about an investigation touching her husband, and who later pleaded no contest in a criminal case; MacDonald told prosecutors he did not recall the conversation. That matter was not part of what he admitted to the Judicial Conduct Committee, and no findings were made against him on it.

The Rules He Admitted Violating

The Discipline Ladder (New Hampshire)

New Hampshire’s Judicial Conduct Committee is an eleven-member body that operates under Supreme Court Rule 40. It screens complaints, investigates, and can issue a Statement of Formal Charges, which the judge is entitled to contest at a public hearing. The committee then makes findings by clear and convincing evidence and files a report with its recommendations with the Supreme Court, which decides whether to impose formal discipline; the judge may seek a new hearing at that stage. A judge can also resolve the case by stipulation, as MacDonald did, which is how an ethics case can end in a resignation rather than a sanction imposed after trial.

Who Watches the Judges?

Every state has some version of the body that took MacDonald’s case: a standing commission or committee whose job is to police judicial conduct. The names and structures differ, and this series has now covered several of them. New York’s Commission on Judicial Conduct can impose removal directly, subject to appeal. Maryland’s Commission on Judicial Disabilities can only recommend; its Supreme Court decides. Wisconsin routes cases through a three-judge panel before its Supreme Court finalizes discipline. Massachusetts requires its Commission to file charges with the Supreme Judicial Court, which appoints a hearing officer. What they share is the basic architecture: an investigative body separate from the courts it polices, a hearing process, and a final decision-maker with the power to sanction.

They also share a starting point. Almost none of these cases begin with the commission noticing something on its own. They begin with a complaint, usually from a lawyer, a court employee, a litigant, or a reporter. MacDonald’s case began with a news report. The Knapp and Gipson matters in Maryland began with judges and court staff complaining about each other. The Mora case in New York began with an office manager at an eye clinic who filed a complaint after a bad encounter in a waiting room.

How It Works in Texas

Texas has its own version: the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, created by the Texas Constitution in 1965. It has jurisdiction over every Texas judge, from municipal court and justice of the peace all the way to the appellate bench. The Commission can investigate and impose its own sanctions, in order of severity, as admonitions, warnings, reprimands, and censures, either privately or publicly, and can order a judge to complete additional education. What it cannot do alone is remove a judge; removal runs through a separate Review Tribunal of appellate justices, with the Texas Supreme Court hearing any appeal. For a fuller walk-through, see our explainer, The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Explained.

Texas voters also reshaped that machinery recently. Proposition 12, approved in 2025, restructured both the Commission and the Review Tribunal, authorizing private reprimands or training for first-time, non-criminal matters, requiring public sanctions or a removal referral when misconduct is willful or persistent, and empowering the Tribunal to suspend a judge without pay and, in some cases, bar a removed judge from holding judicial office again.

Anyone Can File a Complaint

This is the part most people do not know: you do not need to be a lawyer, and you do not need permission. Any member of the public can file a complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct about a Texas judge, including a defendant who believes the judge in their own case crossed an ethical line. A few practical points worth understanding before you do:

• Complaints are filed in writing, on the Commission’s own form or in a signed letter, and can be submitted through the Commission’s website at scjc.texas.gov. There is no filing fee.
• Complaints and the Commission’s investigation are confidential by law. If the Commission issues a public sanction, that becomes public; private sanctions and dismissals do not.
• The Commission handles judicial conduct, not case outcomes. It cannot reverse a ruling, grant a new trial, reduce a sentence, or remove a judge from your pending case. Those are appellate and recusal questions, and they run on separate tracks with their own deadlines.
• Disagreeing with a ruling is not misconduct. Bias, undisclosed conflicts, improper ex parte contact, undignified or abusive treatment of people in the courtroom, and failing to follow the law are the kinds of things the Commission exists to address, as the cases in this series show.
• If your case is still pending, talk to your lawyer first. A complaint does not pause your case, and there may be a recusal motion or an appellate remedy that actually addresses the problem you are facing, which a conduct complaint will not.

How It Played in the Press

New Hampshire Public Radio, whose October 2025 reporting set the investigation in motion, covered the resignation alongside the Boston Globe, the New Hampshire Union Leader, NBC Boston, GBH, the Keene Sentinel, InDepthNH, and NH Journal. Coverage focused on the abruptness of the departure, the unexplained medical leave that preceded it, and the broader run of controversies that has hit the five-member New Hampshire Supreme Court in recent years.

Where Things Stand Now

MacDonald is off the bench; his resignation took effect immediately and ended the Judicial Conduct Committee’s investigation. He has agreed to reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for the committee’s investigation and prosecution costs. He has also given up any claim to have the judicial branch pay his own legal fees. Governor Ayotte will nominate a successor after consulting a judicial selection commission. In the meantime, the four associate justices, who have handled the Chief Justice’s administrative duties since his leave began in July, continue to run the court system.

Sources

PRIMARY SOURCE

• New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee, Stipulation and Agreement, In re: Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald, No. JC-25-079-C, dated September 8, 2026 (Exhibit Q to the committee’s summary report). courts.nh.gov
• New Hampshire Judicial Branch: Update Regarding Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald (September 15, 2026). courts.nh.gov

NEWS COVERAGE

• New Hampshire Public Radio: NH Chief Justice MacDonald announces resignation; ethics probe loomed (September 15, 2026). nhpr.org
• InDepthNH: Gordon MacDonald Resigns as Chief Justice of NH Supreme Court Saying He Accepts Responsibility for his Conduct. indepthnh.org
• Boston Globe: N.H. Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald resigns after ethics violations. bostonglobe.com
• New Hampshire Union Leader: NH Chief Justice MacDonald resigns amid investigation. unionleader.com
• NH Journal: Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald Resigns in Wake of Ethics Probe. nhjournal.com
• NBC Boston: NH Supreme Court’s chief justice admits code of conduct violations as he resigns. nbcboston.com

REFERENCE

• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct: how to file a complaint. scjc.texas.gov
• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct: FAQ. scjc.texas.gov
• Deandra Grant Law: The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Explained. texasdwisite.com
• Ballotpedia: Texas Proposition 12 (2025). ballotpedia.org

This post summarizes public judicial-discipline records and news reporting for general informational purposes as of publication. It is not legal advice, and the general description of the Texas complaint process here is not a substitute for advice about your own case. The separate matter involving former Justice Hantz Marconi is described here only as context; no findings were made against Chief Justice MacDonald in connection with it.