By Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill, D-Lebanon
Dear Chair Mullen and Members of the Judicial Conduct Committee:
I am writing to request that the Judicial Conduct Committee issue a public statement under Supreme Court Rule 40(3)(f) regarding the status of any proceedings involving Supreme Court Justices Patrick Donovan, Melissa Countway, and Bryan Gould.
Rule 40(3)(f) establishes three conditions for such a statement. Each appears to be satisfied.
First, the pendency of potential proceedings is generally known through independent sources. Whether the JCC is investigating the three justices is now the subject of extensive independent news coverage.
Second, the matter is plainly of broad public interest and speculation. The conduct of three of the four sitting Supreme Court justices is receiving substantial statewide and regional media attention. Litigants are now raising the potential JCC investigations in cases before the Court, including a criminal appeal in which the Court postponed oral argument after counsel sought disclosure concerning any ongoing investigations involving the justices.
Third, the lack of information is now threatening public confidence in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has resumed hearing cases while the public and litigants do not know whether three sitting justices are subjects of pending ethics investigations. That uncertainty is already affecting proceedings before the Court. The JCC itself previously determined that the circumstances surrounding the MacDonald investigation warranted a public statement under Rule 40(3)(f), although three of the current sitting justices sought to prevent that disclosure.
Rule 40(3)(f) expressly allows the Committee to confirm the existence of an investigation, clarify its procedural status, explain the requirements of due process, and state that the judge denies the allegations.
I respectfully request that the Committee exercise that authority now and tell the public whether proceedings involving Justices Donovan, Countway, or Gould are pending.
The three-part test in Rule 40(3)(f) appears to be met. As the JCC itself stated, “a public statement of the existence of an investigation will instill confidence in the public that the JCC is fulfilling its responsibility.”
Sincerely,
Karen Liot Hill
Executive Councilor, District 2
References:
Garry Rayno, “The MacDonald JCC Agreement Ensnares More Than the Chief Justice,” InDepthNH.org (Sept. 19, 2026)
New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee, Summary Report of Findings, with Exhibits A–O (Sept. 15, 2026)
State v. Twombly, No. 2025-0270, Motion to Challenge Supreme Court Panel/Request for Stay of Oral Argument (N.H. Sept. 21, 2026)