RebuildNH recently posted an article to their followers encouraging them to Vote NO on the Constitutional amendment to permit judges to serve until the age of 75:
The following question will appear on the ballot this year:
“Are you in favor of amending article 78 of the second part of the constitution to read as follows: [Art.] 78. [Judges and Sheriffs, when Disqualified by Age.] No person shall hold the office of sheriff of any county, after the person has attained the age of seventy years. No person shall hold the office of judge of any court after the person has attained the age of seventy-five years.”
Please vote NO on this article. I have been involved in the Legal-Judicial system for 4 years, much of the time as a pro se litigant. The system needs more honor, ethics, and morals. Checks and balances don’t exist within this institution. I have sent complaints to the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) and the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) and found the system self-protecting. In one of the last dismissed complaints against Nashua’s Corporation Counsel, the ADO wrote:
You have on numerous occasions referred to Mr. Bolton’s conduct as unprofessional. Merriam-Webster defines unprofessional as “not exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, or generally businesslike manner in the workplace.” It is not my role to express an opinion on whether Mr. Bolton has behaved in a “courteous, conscientious, or generally businesslike manner”
Even though the New Hampshire Supreme Court has adopted a set of rules regulating lawyer conduct titled “New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct’, these rules do not require lawyers to “exhibit[] a courteous, conscientious, or generally businesslike manner in the workplace.” Instead, these rules place less restrictive limits on an attorney’s behavior. For example, Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(a)states: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not take any action if the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the action has the primary purpose to embarrass, delay or burden a third person.” (Emphasis added). There is a significant gulf between not being “courteous, conscientious, or generally businesslike” and knowingly taking action with “the primary purpose to embarrass, delay, or burden” someone. In summary, the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct do not require an attorney to behave in a courteous manner.
A judge has the inherent power to control the proceedings in his or her courtroom, which the judge can enforce through his or her judicial power. However, the failure of an attorney to adhere to these expectations will not, in and of itself, be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Professional Conduct Committee of the ADO does not require professional conduct for their attorneys. The ADO used the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for their definition of “unprofessional.” It appears they chose a definition of convenience. I used Black’s Law cited by the profession regularly:
The Law Dictionary, featuring Black’s Law 2nd Edition:term for immoral or dishonest and dishonorable conduct that violates a profession’s code of ethics.
Collins Dictionary:If you use unprofessional to describe someone’s behavior at work, you are criticizing them for not behaving according to the standards that are expected of a person in their profession. Synonyms: unethical, unfitting, improper, lax
It can also be found to mean:Behavior that a reasonable person would find to be demeaning, humiliating, or bullying
Given other definitions, does the NH Supreme Court permit immoral, dishonest, and dishonorable conduct from Attorneys? In my experience, it is widely accepted.
The judicial-legal system has no checks and balances; there is no accountability. There is no reporting system whereby a citizen can file a complaint against a Judge or Attorney for competency, mental impairment, or fitness for duty. In 2024, it is unacceptable that mental health issues and impairment are swept under the rug.
Judge Julie Introcaso laid a trail of devastation in Nashua family court for years that was ignored despite parent complaints about her fitness for duty. Her punishment for two felony charges and three misdemeanors was a slap on the wrist. About Judicial complaints, Attorneys often advise their clients that complaints will most likely result in retaliation by the Judges. There has been a documented occurrence of this retaliation. Fear and non-disclosure prevent the filing of complaints, which diminishes the institution’s honor.
Legal work is the craft of a sound mind. Americans are not getting healthier with age. I read an article today that “Projected estimates indicate that worldwide, the number of people living with dementia could balloon from more than 57 million in 2019 to nearly 153 million by 2050″. The connections between what we eat, drink, and consume as illegal or legal medications are well-established for diabetes and dementia. Actuarially, for Judicial work, a seventy-year-old is a generous cut-off for mental fitness and health in a job where incarceration sentences, monetary damages, and family matters are being determined. Today, there are plenty of people in their 60s whose mental aptitude has diminished such that heavy “mind work” is impossible.
Of course, ageism is not a number, but in a system where no accountability or reporting exists, history speaks – we simply cannot count on the Judicial system to protect the institution’s honor. On November 5th, Vote NO on the Ballot Question for this Constitutional Amendment.
