By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org
New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald isn’t recusing himself from cases involving the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office despite the ongoing “review” of a $50,000 payout to a former Court employee.
Clerk of Court Timothy Gudas is sending disclosure letters to parties involved in criminal justice cases before the Court informing them MacDonald and the other justices have decided recusal over the Dianne Martin matter is not necessary.
“All of the justices are confident that they can adjudicate this case fairly and impartially based solely upon the facts and the applicable law,” Gudas wrote to the attorneys involved in Wednesday’s Logan Clegg appeal of a double homicide conviction.
MacDonald and three other justices took part in Clegg’s oral arguments, with only Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi sitting out. Hantz Marconi will likely recuse herself from cases involving the Attorney General’s Office for the remainder of her term after a year-long legal battle with that office ended last month when she pleaded no contest, but was convicted of a misdemeanor for talking to former Gov. Chris Sununu about an investigation into her husband, former Ports Director Geno Marconi.
The Attorney General’s Office is reviewing Martin’s employment history after NHPR’s Todd Bookman reported last month that she was laid off from her job as the administrative director at the Judicial Branch, then hired two days later by the Supreme Court as the General Counsel to the Office of Bar Admissions. During her brief unemployment, Martin cashed out her accrued employment benefits, including unused vacation and sick time, valued at more than $50,000.
Deputy Attorney General James Boffetti sent MacDonald, Martin, and the Court letters last month instructing them to retain records as the Department of Justice looks into Martin’s job shuffle. Even though a notice to retain records usually precedes a lawsuit or criminal case, Gudas wrote that is not anticipated in the Martin matter.
“To an objective, disinterested observer, a preservation request potentially suggests adversity toward the recipient. Broadly, such a request is generally understood to anticipate a lawsuit or investigation. On that basis, and based on the text of the attached letters, all otherwise non-disqualified justices would likely conclude that disqualification was warranted, at least pending the outcome of the AGO review,” Gudas wrote. “However, on November 5, 2025, through counsel, the justices were informed by the AGO that its review is non-adversarial at this time. Based on that representation made by the AGO, the justices conclude that disqualification is not required.”
Gudas has stated that all decisions about Martin’s employment were made collectively by all of the sitting justices. Similarly, all of the justices decided that no recusals over the Martin review are necessary. If any party in a criminal justice case before the Court still feels a recusal is necessary, they are free to notify Gudas.