New Hampshire's top judge stepped down effective immediately after an ethics investigation found he bent hiring rules to benefit a favored staffer, a scheme that cost taxpayers nearly $50,000 in payouts.
Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald submitted his resignation letter to Gov. Kelly Ayotte on September 15 after the state's Judicial Conduct Committee published a stipulation and agreement in which MacDonald admitted to violating three provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Ayotte accepted the resignation the same day, calling the violations deeply troubling. MacDonald had led New Hampshire's highest court for five years before the misconduct findings forced him out, Just The News reported.
The case centers on MacDonald's handling of personnel decisions involving Dianne Martin, the former director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the judiciary's own administrative arm. The conduct committee found that MacDonald bypassed standard hiring procedures to steer Martin into a new role after she was removed for job performance problems, creating the appearance of favoritism at the top of a branch of government that exists to enforce the rules.
The timeline laid out in the Judicial Conduct Committee's summary report traces a pattern of maneuvering that began in early 2025. Martin was removed from her position as director of the Administrative Office of the Courts in February 2025 following an internal investigation into job performance issues, an investigation MacDonald knew about.
Martin then emailed MacDonald about her termination. The conduct committee's findings state MacDonald reacted with anger and frustration, allegedly slamming doors and using profanity toward other justices on the court.
On April 1, 2025, Martin was told her position had been eliminated entirely and she was being officially laid off. That designation mattered: a layoff, unlike a termination for cause, allowed Martin to cash in close to $50,000 in unused sick time, vacation time, and benefits.
Then, just 48 hours after the layoff, Martin was rehired, this time as general counsel to the Office of Bar Admissions. The conduct committee noted that Martin had previously been offered that same position when she was terminated but had declined it. A whistleblower told investigators the entire lay-off-and-rehire maneuver was MacDonald's idea.
MacDonald disputed that characterization. In written responses to the committee's questions, he said the decisions were made collectively by himself and three other sitting justices at the time, on the advice of counsel. But the committee's findings and the stipulation MacDonald signed tell a different story, one in which the chief justice admitted he failed to follow the same process every other judicial branch employee must go through.
The stipulation and agreement MacDonald signed with the Judicial Conduct Committee spells out three specific violations of New Hampshire's Code of Judicial Conduct. First, he failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Second, he bypassed judicial branch rules and procedures by extending Martin a position without the standard hiring process required of every other employee. Third, he failed to exercise his power of administrative appointment impartially.
Those are not minor procedural footnotes. The code of judicial conduct exists to ensure that courts, the institutions citizens rely on to apply the law fairly, hold themselves to the same standards they impose on everyone else. A chief justice who rigs a hiring process for a favored staffer undermines that foundation. While the federal courts face their own institutional scrutiny over spending and accountability, this case strikes at something more basic: whether judges follow their own rules.
MacDonald also addressed persistent rumors about his relationship with Martin. In his written responses to the committee, he acknowledged rumors of an affair and denied them, stating the claim was false "and has caused great damage to me." He "emphatically" stated his relationship with Martin had always been professional.
Gov. Ayotte, a Republican and former U.S. senator, did not hold back. In a written statement, WMUR reported, she said:
"It is essential that the Judicial Branch maintain the public's trust in its mission to impartially adjudicate matters brought in front of the courts. I am extremely disappointed to learn today of the former Chief Justice's violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct, and I received his resignation this morning."
MacDonald, for his part, framed his departure as a sacrifice for the institution rather than a consequence of his own conduct. In a written statement, he said:
"To maintain the integrity of the judicial branch and to avoid the protracted and disruptive spectacle a public hearing would cause to the judicial branch and its dedicated employees, I have agreed to resign my position."
He added that he accepted "responsibility and accountability" for his conduct and took "full responsibility for my shortcomings." He expressed hope that the judicial branch could "move forward without further distraction."
Framing a resignation forced by admitted ethics violations as a selfless act to spare the institution a "spectacle" is a familiar move. The spectacle MacDonald wanted to avoid was a public hearing, one that would have put the full details of his conduct on the record in open proceedings. By resigning under a stipulated agreement, he controlled the terms of his exit. The broader judicial landscape has seen no shortage of high-profile accountability questions in recent months, but few involve a sitting chief justice admitting to rigging the hiring process on his own court.
MacDonald had been on medical leave since July 24, well before the public release of the conduct committee's findings. State court officials announced the leave in late July without disclosing the nature of his medical issue. During that time, the court's four associate justices assumed the chief justice's administrative responsibilities.
Judicial Branch spokesman David Sakowich confirmed the arrangement in a written statement, adding that the branch "remains focused on carrying out its responsibilities to the public and ensuring that the work of the courts continues without interruption." He noted that the court's next oral arguments are scheduled for September 22.
Sakowich also noted that the current associate justices were not members of the panel that approved the stipulation and agreement with MacDonald, a detail that distances the sitting bench from the deal that let the chief justice resign rather than face a public hearing.
The Judicial Conduct Committee had been investigating MacDonald since November 2025, focusing on his actions related to Martin's employment and performance. In March 2026, the committee elevated the matter from an investigation to a formal complaint, a step that signaled the evidence was serious enough to warrant potential sanctions or a public proceeding. The nation's courts at every level have faced heightened public attention over questions of institutional integrity, and MacDonald's case adds a state-level chapter to that pattern.
MacDonald's resignation leaves several unanswered questions. The conduct committee's summary report does not detail the specific findings of the internal investigation into Martin's job performance that triggered her removal in February 2025. It is also unclear what sanctions, if any, the committee would have imposed had MacDonald not resigned under the stipulated agreement.
Perhaps most pressing for New Hampshire residents: who fills the vacancy? The process for nominating and appointing a new chief justice will now fall to Gov. Ayotte, though the specific mechanics were not detailed in the committee's published documents. The selection of judges at every level carries weight for the citizens who live under their rulings, and Ayotte's choice will shape New Hampshire's highest court for years.
MacDonald's five-year tenure ended not with a retirement ceremony but with a stipulated admission that he broke the rules he was sworn to uphold. He bent the hiring process for a staffer who had already been removed for performance problems, engineered a layoff that unlocked nearly $50,000 in payouts, and then watched as that same staffer was back on the state payroll within two days.
When the people who run the courts stop following the rules, they have no standing to ask anyone else to follow them either.
