Gordon MacDonald stepped down as chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court after admitting he violated the state's judicial code of conduct, a fall triggered by a personnel maneuver that funneled nearly $50,000 to a longtime associate.
MacDonald, 64, sent his resignation to Republican Governor Kelly Ayotte on Tuesday morning, effective immediately. The move came after he reached an agreement with the state's Judicial Conduct Committee, dated September 8, in which he admitted to three separate violations of New Hampshire's Code of Judicial Conduct rather than face the findings at a public hearing.
The committee's investigation centered on Dianne Martin, a longtime Judicial Branch employee who had worked with MacDonald both at the Supreme Court and during his earlier tenure as state attorney general. Martin was laid off from her position last year, then rehired just 48 hours later in a different role. That brief gap allowed her to collect nearly $50,000 in unused sick and vacation benefits she would not otherwise have received.
The arrangement stayed quiet until October 2025, when New Hampshire Public Radio broke the story after a whistleblower alleged MacDonald had helped orchestrate the payout. The report set off a chain of official reviews that would end MacDonald's five-year tenure on the bench.
After the NHPR report, the remaining Supreme Court justices issued a public statement defending the personnel changes. They called the moves consistent with "standard personnel policies" and described them as part of a broader reorganization to cut costs. One justice, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, refused to sign the statement. The article did not explain her reasons.
The Judicial Conduct Committee opened its inquiry the month after NHPR's report. Meanwhile, the New Hampshire attorney general's office conducted its own review. That review, completed last November, found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, but concluded that the personnel maneuvers involving Martin did not follow "human resources best practices."
No criminal charges. But not clean, either.
The Judicial Conduct Committee's findings went further than the attorney general's review. The committee determined MacDonald had failed to "promote public confidence" in the judiciary, failed to perform his duties competently, and failed "to avoid favoritism with respect to the removal of Dianne Martin" from her position. The committee did not settle for discipline. It concluded that MacDonald's removal from the bench, not a reprimand, not a suspension, was the necessary outcome.
Records released Tuesday included the committee's reasoning. As Newsweek reported, the committee stated plainly why resignation was the floor, not the ceiling:
"The JCC determined that if MacDonald were allowed to retain his judicial commission, even while suspected, it would run counter to these important constitutional principles. Thus, the certainty that he would no longer hold a position of public trust was of paramount concern to the JCC."
MacDonald did not fight the findings. In his resignation letter, he offered two sentences that read more like a prepared legal statement than a personal reckoning:
"I believe this is in the best interests of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch. I accept responsibility and accountability for my conduct."
Governor Ayotte said she was "extremely disappointed" by the violations. In her statement, she framed the matter as a question of institutional trust:
"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."
Ayotte added that the Judicial Branch "remains focused on carrying out its responsibilities to the public and ensuring that the work of the courts continues without interruption." MacDonald's departure gives Ayotte the opportunity to appoint her third justice to the state's highest court. Any nominee must win approval from New Hampshire's five-member Executive Council. Ayotte faces reelection on November 3.
MacDonald had been on medical leave since late July. Judicial Branch spokesperson David Sakowich said the four remaining justices had already assumed MacDonald's administrative duties during his absence. The reason for MacDonald's medical leave was not disclosed.
State supreme court ethics cases rarely end in resignation. In 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court publicly censured former Chief Justice Nathan Coats for approving a contract with a judicial employee who had falsified reimbursement requests. Coats did not step down. Earlier this year, a report found Arkansas Chief Justice Karen Baker had intimidated court staff. Baker also kept her seat.
MacDonald chose a different path, or had it chosen for him. The committee's language made clear that continued service was not on the table.
Before his appointment to the bench in 2021 by then-Governor Chris Sununu, MacDonald served four years as New Hampshire's attorney general. He grew up in the Hanover area, attended Dartmouth College, and earned his law degree from Cornell University. He was active in New Hampshire Republican politics throughout his career.
The New Hampshire House had considered opening its own investigation into MacDonald earlier this year but tabled the resolution. Whether legislators revisit that question now remains unclear.
MacDonald's resignation closes the ethics case, but it leaves gaps. The specific role Martin was rehired into, and the role she left, remain publicly unidentified. The whistleblower's identity has not been disclosed. And the committee's report references "important constitutional principles" without specifying which provisions of New Hampshire law it relied on.
Most pointedly: MacDonald admitted to favoritism, incompetence, and undermining public confidence in the courts. The attorney general found no crime. But a 48-hour layoff-and-rehire that puts $50,000 in a longtime associate's pocket is the kind of maneuver that, in any other workplace, would prompt a fraud investigation, not a finding that "human resources best practices" were merely overlooked.
When the people who write the rules bend them for their own, accountability demands more than a quiet exit and a two-sentence letter.
