Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald Resigns Over a Rehire

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 there 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 his former chief of staff from the attorney general’s office, whom the judicial branch hired in 2021 as director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. In April 2025, with the branch under a hiring freeze and MacDonald publicly warning of budget-driven layoffs, she was laid off from that directorship 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 began the new job several months before her predecessor retired, so two people were drawing pay for the same position at once.

She is referred to here by role; the stipulation and the press name her. She is not the subject of the discipline and made no admission.

The Press Statement That Opened the File

New Hampshire Public Radio reported the arrangement on October 23, 2025. The state attorney general’s office reviewed it and concluded in late November 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.

What turned a news story into an ethics case was the response. On October 31, 2025, MacDonald and three associate justices, Patrick Donovan, Melissa Countway and Bryan Gould, issued a joint statement saying the personnel decisions had been made by the court collectively rather than by any one justice. The Judicial Conduct Committee opened its inquiry in mid-November 2025 in part because of concerns about that statement’s accuracy. Its summary found the statement did not accurately portray the process for [the employee’s] removal and rehire to a new position and created the misimpression that her removal and rehire was part of a routine administrative reorganization of the court’s administrative office.

MacDonald went on medical leave on July 24, 2026, without public explanation, and the four associate justices took over his administrative duties. Six weeks later he signed the stipulation.

What He Admitted, and What He Gave Up

The stipulation is five pages and it is worth reading, because it shows exactly what a negotiated exit costs. He admitted three violations:

Then the waivers. He gave up his right to a public hearing on a Statement of Formal Charges under Supreme Court Rule 40, and separately gave up any right to a de novo hearing under Rule 40(12)(f). He agreed the committee would enter a finding by clear and convincing evidence on 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 stages, under Rule 40(13-A). He agreed not to seek payment of his own lawyers from the judicial branch default fund. And he agreed to resign both as Chief Justice and as a justice, effective on approval.

In exchange, the committee agreed to enter the findings, terminate its investigation, and refer the matter to the Supreme Court for approval of the settlement as the imposition of formal discipline under Rule 40(12)(d). In his resignation letter he wrote that he accepted responsibility and accountability for his conduct and that it had been an honor to serve.

Who Disciplines the Head of the Judiciary

New Hampshire ran into the problem many states have: the body that must approve discipline against the Chief Justice is the court he leads. Its answer was to assign the work out. According to the state bar association’s account, the panel that approved the stipulation consisted of retired Superior Court Chief Justice Tina Nadeau and Superior Court Judges Mark Attorri, Martin Honigberg, Lawrence MacLeod Jr. and James Kennedy. The court’s own statement described it only as a specially assigned panel and confirmed that none of the sitting associate justices were on it. They learned of the approval the morning it was announced.

Five trial judges, in other words, sat as the Supreme Court of New Hampshire to accept the resignation of its Chief Justice. And the bar association reports the panel found that no additional disciplinary action was available because he had resigned. The committee chair acknowledged publicly that the settlement withheld some transparency and some facts from the public, and said the committee nonetheless judged it in the public interest because MacDonald agreed to resign immediately and did not contest the allegations.

The public got a resignation and an admission on the record, and gave up the hearing that would have put the evidence in the open.

How Texas Would Map It

Each of the three rules he admitted violating has a Texas counterpart.

Rule 1.2 maps to Canon 2A, which says a judge shall comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and to Canon 2B, which forbids lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others. Both mandatory.

Rule 2.13(A) maps almost word for word to Canon 3C(4): a judge shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit, shall avoid unnecessary appointments, should avoid nepotism and favoritism, and shall not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered. That last clause has no New Hampshire analogue in the rule he admitted violating, and in a case about a payout it is the one a Texas commission would reach for first. This series has already seen Canon 3C(4) do that work, in File 69, where a New York surrogate was admonished over appointing campaign supporters as guardians.

Rule 2.5(A) is where Texas is weaker, and the difference is not cosmetic. New Hampshire’s rule says a judge shall perform administrative duties competently and diligently. Texas Canon 3C(1) says a judge should diligently and promptly discharge administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and cooperate with other judges and court officials. Should, not shall. The Texas canons use that distinction deliberately, and this series has run into it before, in File 37, where Canon 3D(1) was the Texas should to Maryland’s shall. The administrative-competence count, the one that captured the bypassing of hiring rules and the inaccurate public explanation, is the count whose Texas twin is aspirational.

Texas has its own version of the who-disciplines-the-chief problem. Under Proposition 12 the Review Tribunal is seven courts of appeals justices selected by the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Proposition 12 struck the old requirement that the seven be drawn by lot from a list each court of appeals contributed to, so the selection is now the Chief Justice’s outright. If the respondent were the Chief Justice, he would be choosing the tribunal that judges him. On the Commission side there is at least a mechanism: Rule 15(a)(1) of the Disciplinary Rules lets a party seek recusal of a commission member on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b grounds, with the motion decided by the remaining members. Nothing comparable is spelled out for the Tribunal’s selection.

What a Resignation Buys, by State

MacDonald’s resignation ended the case. That is not a given, and this series has now watched four states answer the question differently.

That does not mean Texas never settles. It means the settlement is a different instrument. The Commission’s own suspensions record shows twenty-one of its roughly ninety-six published indictment suspensions closed with a resignation agreement, and the price can be steep: the agreement that ended the Bexar County case in April 2026 carried a lifetime bar from Texas judicial office. A Texas judge in MacDonald’s position could have offered to resign, but the Commission would have been negotiating from a position New Hampshire’s committee did not have, because the alternative to a deal was not dismissal.

One term of his agreement would be flatly unavailable here. He agreed to reimburse the courts for the committee’s fees and expenses under Rule 40(13-A). Government Code § 33.031 says that in a Texas proceeding under chapter 33, court costs or attorney’s fees may not be awarded. Not to the judge, and not to the Commission. A Texas commission has nothing to trade on that front.

Anyone Can File a Complaint

This case did not begin with a complaint. It began with a radio story, and then with a press release the committee thought was untrue. That is unusual. Almost every other file in this series began with somebody deciding to put something in writing, and that somebody did not need to be a lawyer.

Any member of the public can file a complaint with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct about any Texas judge, from municipal court and justice of the peace to the appellate bench, including a defendant who believes the judge in their own case crossed a line. A few practical points before you do:

A complaint must be a completed, signed and sworn complaint form, printed and mailed to the Commission in Austin. There is no filing fee, and the Commission does not accept complaints by online form, telephone, email or fax. Under section 33.0321 you may ask the Commission to keep your identity confidential, and it is worth asking in the complaint itself rather than assuming.

The complaint and the investigation are confidential before formal charges are filed. A public sanction becomes public; private sanctions and dismissals do not. Expect quarterly status notices under section 33.0211(b) and not much else.

The Commission handles conduct, not outcomes. It cannot reverse a ruling, grant a new trial, reduce a sentence or take a judge off your pending case. Those are appellate and recusal questions running on separate tracks with their own deadlines, and a conduct complaint does not pause any of them.

Disagreeing with a ruling is not misconduct. Bias, undisclosed conflicts, improper ex parte contact, undignified or abusive treatment of people in the courtroom, appointments steered to friends, and failing to follow the law are what the Commission exists for, as the cases in this series show. For the architecture, see our explainer; the Commission’s own FAQ covers the mechanics.

If your case is pending, talk to your lawyer first. There may be a recusal motion or an appellate remedy that actually fixes the problem in front of you, 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, NH Journal and the state bar association. Coverage focused on the abruptness of the departure, the unexplained medical leave that preceded it, and the run of controversies that has hit the five-member court.

Where Things Stand Now

He is off the bench and the seat is still empty. The resignation took effect on the panel’s approval and the Executive Council accepted it on September 16. The governor nominates and the Executive Council confirms, and as of late October no nomination had been made; the governor has said it is premature to say when she will move. The four remaining justices continue to run the court system, as they have since his leave began in July.

Three open issues:

First, the press statement. A complaint filed against the three associate justices who signed the October 2025 statement was dismissed for lack of standing, and the committee will not say whether they are under investigation. Whether the three co-signers answer for the same document their chief justice admitted was inaccurate is unresolved.

Second, the Hantz Marconi matter. Former Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi pleaded no contest and was found guilty in the criminal case arising from her meeting with the former governor about an investigation touching her husband. She has said MacDonald told her she had a right to that meeting; he told prosecutors he did not recall the conversation. The committee filed ethics charges against her this past summer, after she had already retired, and a hearing is set for December at which both the former governor and MacDonald are expected to be called. Note what that implies: New Hampshire does not automatically lose jurisdiction when a judge leaves. MacDonald’s resignation ended his case because the committee agreed it would, not because departure stripped the committee of power.

Third, the politics. Judicial ethics has become an issue in the 2026 New Hampshire governor’s race, and a complaint was filed this month seeking a review of a judicial-conduct education conference, which was postponed from late October to November. The committee’s executive secretary has said the conference is required public education under Supreme Court Rule 39(9)(i) and will not discuss individual cases. None of that bears on what MacDonald admitted, and this publication takes no position on any of it. It is noted because it is the environment the next chief justice will be nominated into.

Sources

PRIMARY SOURCES

• New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee, Stipulation and Agreement, In re: Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald, No. JC-25-079-C (dated Sept. 2026), five pages. stipulation (pdf)
• New Hampshire Judicial Branch, Update Regarding Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald (Sept. 15, 2026). courts.nh.gov
• New Hampshire Bar Association, MacDonald resigns as chief justice after admitting judicial conduct violations (naming the specially assigned panel and reporting that no additional discipline was available after the resignation). nhbar.org

TEXAS AUTHORITY

• Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 (2A and 2B). Canon 2
• Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C(1), 3C(2) and 3C(4). Canon 3
• Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 33.002, 33.0211(b), 33.031 (no award of costs or fees), 33.032, 33.0321 (complainant confidentiality). Texas Government Code
• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, suspensions record (resignation agreements among published dispositions). scjc.texas.gov
• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, how to file a complaint. scjc.texas.gov
• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, FAQ. scjc.texas.gov

NEWS COVERAGE

• New Hampshire Public Radio, NH Chief Justice MacDonald announces resignation; ethics probe loomed (Sept. 15, 2026). nhpr.org
• InDepthNH, Gordon MacDonald resigns as chief justice saying he accepts responsibility for his conduct (Sept. 15, 2026), for the committee chair’s comments on transparency and the October 31, 2025 joint statement. indepthnh.org
• InDepthNH, Judicial ethics front and center in NH governor’s race (Oct. 26, 2026), for the vacancy, the dismissed complaint against the three associate justices and the December hearing in the Hantz Marconi matter. 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

• Deandra Grant Law, Who Polices Texas Judges? The SCJC Explained. texasdwisite.com

• The admissions, waivers and terms described here are taken from the stipulation and agreement and from the Judicial Conduct Committee’s public summary as reported in New Hampshire’s press; the committee’s full summary report was not available to us, and where its reasoning is described it is attributed to the account reporting it. The judicial branch employee at the center of the personnel matter is referred to by role rather than by name, although the stipulation and the press identify her; she is not the subject of the discipline and made no admission. Committee staff, counsel and complainants are also referred to by role. The comparison of Texas law, including the readings of Canons 2 and 3C and of Government Code sections 33.031 and 33.0321, is our own analysis of the text rather than any court’s holding, and the question of who selects a Review Tribunal when the Chief Justice is the respondent appears to be unresolved. The matter involving former Justice Hantz Marconi is described because it is now a pending proceeding in which MacDonald is expected to be a witness; no findings have been made against him in it. The description of the Texas complaint process is general information and not a substitute for advice about your own case. This post summarizes public records and news reporting as of October 29, 2026 and is not legal advice.